Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd [2024] UKSC 29

HMRC argued that part-time football referees in the National Group were employees of PGMOL for tax and National Insurance purposes. The Supreme Court held that individual match contracts satisfied the requirements of mutuality of obligation and control necessary for employment, remitting the case to determine overall employment status.

Facts

Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) provides referees for major English football competitions. Part-time referees in the ‘National Group’ officiated matches in the Championship League and FA Cup, accepting individual match appointments through an electronic system. HMRC contended these referees were employees for income tax and National Insurance purposes. The First-tier Tribunal found that while overarching seasonal contracts and individual match contracts existed, neither constituted contracts of employment due to insufficient mutuality of obligation and control.

Issues

Mutuality of Obligation

Whether the individual match contracts contained sufficient mutual obligations (personal service for payment) to satisfy the first essential requirement of a contract of employment, despite both parties having the right to cancel engagements without penalty before the referee arrived at the ground.

Control

Whether PGMOL exercised a sufficient degree of control over referees under the individual match contracts, given that referees operated with institutional independence during matches under FA rules.

Judgment

Lord Richards, delivering the unanimous judgment, dismissed PGMOL’s appeal on both issues.

On Mutuality of Obligation

The Court held that mutuality of obligation exists where work is offered and performed for payment, even if obligations subsist only during the working period. Lord Richards stated:

“It is clearly established that there may be sufficient mutuality of obligation to satisfy one of the essential requisites of a contract of employment, even if the obligations subsist only during the period while the putative employee is working for the putative employer.”

The right of either party to terminate the engagement without penalty did not negate the existence of mutual obligations while the contract remained in place.

On Control

The Court emphasised flexibility in assessing control, citing the principle from Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd:

“What matters is lawful authority to command so far as there is scope for it. And there must always be some room for it, if only in incidental or collateral matters.”

The inability to intervene during match officiating did not preclude sufficient control. PGMOL’s contractual obligations on referees regarding conduct and performance, combined with assessment systems affecting future appointments and merit payments, constituted a sufficient framework of control.

Implications

This judgment clarifies that contracts of employment may exist for single engagements where work is performed for payment, without requiring prior subsisting obligations. It confirms that control need not extend to all aspects of work performance, particularly for skilled occupations. The case was remitted to the FTT to determine, applying the correct legal principles, whether the individual match contracts were contracts of employment when all relevant factors are considered together.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the individual match contracts satisfied the requirements of mutuality of obligation and control necessary for a contract of employment. The case was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to determine whether, considering all relevant terms and circumstances, the contracts were contracts of employment.

Source: Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd [2024] UKSC 29