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

This ground covers much the same ground as the arguments in relation to the actual contracts. There was no error of law in the FTT finding that the implied terms as to reasonableness that it found would have been in the actual contracts would have been express in the hypothetical contracts. As stated above, such terms are permissible and regularly used in employment contracts (ones of personal service).

In the specific context of how much work Mr Thompson would be required to perform, on the FTT’s findings this was not in any event controlled simply by the requirement that requests should be “reasonable”. The FTT found (against which there is no appeal) that the scope of work that Mr Thompson would be required to perform was specific and limited within the hypothetical contract to that of Soccer Saturday and few other specified commitments [57].

The FTT impliedly found that if Sky had sought to insist on Mr Thompson doing a different show every weekday, Mr Thompson would not have agreed to this. However, provided the shows were limited to Soccer Saturday, mid-week games, associated marketing and publicity events and relevant interviews, the parties would have agreed that Sky had the contractual right to give reasonable directions about when and where the Services would be performed.