UT/2020/000377 - [2024] UKUT 00099 (TCC)

The FTT failed properly to determine what the terms of the hypothetical contracts would have been and apply the common law test of employment to those terms;

The FTT erred in law in its approach to mutuality of obligation; and erred in law and/or reached a perverse conclusion in finding that, within the actual LLCs and ULCs, there was not sufficient mutuality of obligation;

The FTT erred in law, took into account irrelevant considerations and/or reached a perverse conclusion in finding that Mr Alcock had significant control over ‘what’ work he did;

The FTT erred in law, took into account irrelevant considerations and/or reached a perverse conclusion in finding that Mr Alcock had significant control over ‘how’ he did his work;

The FTT erred in law, took into account irrelevant considerations and/or reached a perverse conclusion in finding that Mr Alcock’s purported control over ‘what’ work he did and ‘how’ he did it could “outweigh” the contractual controls that the clients would have had over ‘when’ and ‘where’ the work was performed;

The Tribunal erred in law, took into account irrelevant considerations and/or reached a perverse conclusion in finding that the other terms of the hypothetical contract would have been inconsistent with a contract of employment and/or that in performing the work for the clients, Mr Alcock would have been in business on his own account;

The Tribunal erred in law and/or took into account irrelevant considerations in its approach to considering whether Mr Alcock was in business on his own account.