Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Employment Status of PGMOL Part-Time Football Referees: A Closer Look at Mutuality of Obligations and Control
The long-awaited judgment from the Supreme Court on the employment status for tax purposes of part-time football referees in the Professional Game Match Officials Limited’s (PGMOL) appeal against HMRC was published on 16th September 2024. The Supreme Court ratified the Court of Appeal’s conclusion on mutuality of obligations and control, which are key considerations when assessing employment status for tax. A personal service requirement was never in dispute in this case therefore arguments hinged on other employment status tests.
Despite these part-time referees often having other full-time jobs or occupations, the Supreme Court ruled that the referees’ contracts contained the necessary requirements to potentially be contracts of employment.
The matter started when HMRC assessed engagements for tax years 2014/15 and 2015/16. PGMOL disagreed with HMRC’s assessment and appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). The FTT agreed with PGMOL that the referees were not employed for tax purposes but HMRC subsequently appealed to the Upper Tier Tribunal; the appeal was dismissed. HMRC appealed again to the Court of Appeal, who this time ruled in HMRC’s favour for the individual contracts and remitted the case back to the FTT to reach a decision on whether the individual contracts should be treated as contracts of employment. However, PGMOL appealed the Court of Appeal decision in the Supreme Court.
The case was heard in June 2023 and the judgment has been eagerly awaited.
The decision underlines the fact that sufficient mutuality of obligation and control can be present even where a contract or engagement is for a short period or specific purpose or both, without the hirer actively supervising or intervening while the work is done. In PGMOL, it was concluded that the referees were employed for tax purposes from the time they arrived at a football match they were refereeing until the delivery of the post-match report mere days later.
The Supreme Court has remitted the case back to the FTT for them to consider the individual contracts.
The case further highlights (i) the importance of considering the reality of the engagement as well as the contract governing the service; and (ii) that each case must be assessed on its own merits.
If you would like to discuss this in further detail, please reach out to Brookson Legal.