Key Facts
- •Part-time football referees' employment status was disputed for income tax and National Insurance purposes.
- •The appellant, Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL), engaged referees in the 'National Group' on a per-match basis.
- •Referees accepted match appointments via software, with the right to refuse or withdraw before the match.
- •PGMOL had disciplinary procedures and an assessment system influencing future appointments and payments.
- •The dispute centered on whether individual match contracts were contracts of employment, focusing on mutuality of obligation and control.
Legal Principles
A contract of employment requires mutuality of obligation (payment for personal service) and sufficient employer control.
Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497
Determining employment status requires considering the cumulative effect of all contract provisions and surrounding circumstances.
White v Troutbeck SA [2013] EWCA Civ 1171
Sufficient control does not require intervention in every aspect of work performance, but a sufficient framework of control must exist.
Montgomery v Johnson Underwood Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 318
A single engagement can create a contract of employment if work is done for payment, even without obligations outside that period.
McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment [1997] ICR 549
Effective sanctions for breach of contract, even if imposed after the engagement ends, are relevant to demonstrating control.
This case's judgment
Outcomes
PGMOL's appeal dismissed.
The individual match contracts satisfied the minimum requirements of mutuality of obligation and control for contracts of employment. The Court considered the right to impose sanctions after the match was a relevant factor in establishing control.
Case remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
While the Supreme Court found sufficient mutuality and control, it deemed a further assessment necessary to determine if the entire context of the contract indicated an employment relationship. The FTT must apply guidance from Atholl House and the Supreme Court's judgment.