The requirement for consent to other employment
The requirement for consent to other employment
Although the 2013 Contract (unlike the 2010 Contract) contained a requirement for Mainpay to consent before a worker undertook work for somebody else, the FTT found that in practice there was no expectation that such consent in fact had to be obtained: FTT[65]. As a matter of practice, workers did not seek consent if they wanted to do other work and Mainpay did not expect them to do so: FTT[68].
Statutory benefits
Mainpay considered itself to be under an obligation to pay statutory benefits such as sick pay, maternity pay and paternity pay, and made such payments: FTT[69].
- Heading
- Introduction
- summary of relevant facts
- The 2010 Contract
- The 2013 Contract
- Obtaining assignments
- The process for paying subsistence expenses
- The requirement for consent to other employment
- Length and number of assignments
- the ftt’s determination of the issues
- grounds of appeal
- deductibility of subsistence expenses: relevant legislation
- ground 1: the 2013 contract was an overarching contract of employment
- Mainpay’s argument
- Discussion
- ground 2: a single employment contract
- The FTT’s decision
- Relevant legislation
- Mainpay’s arguments
- Discussion
- ground 3: meaning of “permanent workplace”
- The FTT’s decision
- Mainpay’s argument
- Discussion
- ground 4: use of benchmark scale rates
- Relevant legislation
- The FTT’s decision
- Mainpay’s argument
- Discussion
- ground 5: loss of tax brought about carelessly
- What the FTT decided
- Mainpay’s arguments
- HMRC’s pleading of carelessness
- Failure to take reasonable care
- Causation
- Reliance on Mr Hugo
- Conclusions
![UT/2023/000049 - [2024] UKUT 00233 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)