UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2024-000044 - [2025] UKUT 00094 (TCC)

We reject this ground of appeal challenging the evaluative exercise conducted by the FTT, which we have accepted contained no material errors of law and was well within a reasonable range of conclusions that could have been reached for the reasons given. Although the UT decision in Barnes UT was not promulgated until after the FTT’s decision in this case, the FTT’s approach was nevertheless in accordance with the guidance of Barnes UT. The FTT identified those factors consistent with employment and those factors not inconsistent with employment (or “neutral” to use the language of Barnes UT). It was entitled to find that none of the terms of the hypothetical contract was inconsistent with an employment contract (other than [68(11)] – the absence of perks offered to Mr Thompson which other employees enjoyed – but which it found did not outweigh its overall conclusion). Its conclusions were rational.

After having considered the factors identified by the parties, the FTT then also “stood back” to see what picture emerged at [69] weighing all the factors together. There is no proper basis for the Upper Tribunal interfering with that exercise. There was, accordingly, no error of law in the FTT’s consideration of the factors relevant to determining the status of the hypothetical contracts.