UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2019/0000122 - [2025] UKUT 00124 (TCC)

We must now consider what effect the errors of law identified in the UT Decision have for the purposes of Ground 3. Ground 3 asserts that the errors of law pursuant to Ground 1 and Ground 2 caused the FTT to err in law in concluding that the RBH hypothetical contract was a contract of employment.

It is important to note in this context that at UT[20] – [30], the appellant was refused permission to add a further ground of appeal alleging that the FTT erred at the third stage in concluding that the other provisions of the RBH hypothetical contract were consistent with a contract of employment. It was granted permission in so far as necessary to amend or clarify Grounds 2 and 3 so as to encompass not only an allegation that the FTT’s conclusion was not available to it on the evidence, but also an argument that the FTT erred in law in finding that there was mutuality of obligation.

In the circumstances, the appellant does not have permission to challenge the FTT’s approach to the third stage, save as regards the errors of law found (in the UT Decision) to have been made in relation to two matters taken into account by the FTT at the third stage. The first error was that the FTT took into account a notice period of one week. The second was that the FTT took into account an obligation on RBH to use reasonable endeavours to provide Mr Mantides with 10 half hour sessions of work per week. In fact the RBH hypothetical contract could be terminated without notice and there was no obligation on RBH to provide any work to Mr Mantides. We must consider the effect of these errors on the FTT’s overall finding at the third stage that the RBH hypothetical contract was a contract of employment.

The appellant’s case, as set out in Mr Paulin’s further written submissions and orally, is that the FTT’s errors under Grounds 1 and 2 led it to err in its consideration of mutuality of obligation at the third stage.