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

At [60], the FTT decided that the evidence of the informal arrangements made for Mr Thompson’s appearances on Sky did not support the proposition that Mr Thompson would have an unfettered right to refuse to perform the Services. In so doing, it did not err in law.

We, again, agree with Mr Stone’s arguments. First, as we have described above, the FTT’s findings on how the arrangements worked in practice do not support a conclusion that Mr Thompson had a right to refuse work.

Secondly and in any event, the FTT’s approach is consistent with the guidance in Atholl House UT at [56(1)], which warns against the danger of seeking to derive the terms of a hypothetical contract from how a harmonious and reasonable working relationship was conducted in practice. The fact that in practice Sky was willing to accommodate the rare occasions on which Mr Thompson was unavailable for a programme is not an indication that Sky would have agreed that Mr Thompson had the contractual right not to work. Nor is it evidence that Sky would not have insisted on the same contractual rights to determine when and where Mr Thompson would perform the services, in case this were needed to deal with a “flashpoint”.

Third, it cannot reasonably be inferred that the views of IC, a producer of Soccer Saturday, on how the contracts operated would prevail over Sky’s corporately decided standard terms in any hypothetical negotiation. Even if IC’s view might have informed any negotiation, it cannot be sensibly suggested that he would determine Sky’s position. There was no evidence from Sky that IC would have had authority over or responsibility for Sky’s negotiation of and agreement to the contracts.

This ground does not disclose any error of law on the part of the FTT.