In Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd, the Supreme Court has decided that contracts between part-time football referees and their administrative body, which were entered into on each occasion that they were engaged to officiate at a particular match, met the minimum requirements necessary to establish their status as employees.
The parties’ obligations during the period of engagement – from the time the match was accepted to the time when the match report was submitted – satisfied the requirement for mutuality of obligation, a core requirement to be deemed an employee.
It did not matter for these purposes that the parties had a right to cancel the engagement without penalty. During the life of the the parties were under mutuality of obligation towards each other.
Furthermore, the combination of contractual obligations imposed on referees as to their conduct generally during the period of engagement and their conduct during the match was capable of giving PGMO Ltd sufficient control to meet the “contro”l test.
The Supreme Court emphasised that while control and mutuality of obligation are prerequisites for an employment contract, they are not necessarily sufficient: the cumulative effect of the contractual provisions and all the circumstances of the relationship created by it – including the right to cancel the engagement without penalty – must also be considered.
As such the Supreme Court has remitted the case to the First-tier Tribunal for it to decide whether, in the light of all relevant circumstances, the individual contracts were contracts of employment for the purpose of the legislation governing tax and National Insurance liability.
This is not a Tribunal case, but is nonetheless significant in terms of how the employment tribunals decide employment status.
Leave a comment