Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd

Why It Matters

Accurate application of the RMC test determines tax and social‑security obligations, guiding employers and workers on proper employment classification and reducing litigation risk.

Key Takeaways

• Tribunal erred on mutuality of obligation for RMC limb one
• Control test misdirected, ignoring relevant considerations at limb two
• Paragraph 174 reflects combined findings, not a separate balancing exercise
• Part‑time work context highlighted, but does not negate employment status
• Social security Act section 151(2) prevents contracting out of statutory sick pay

Summary

The Lords heard arguments in Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd, concentrating on whether the referees were employees for tax and social‑security purposes. Central to the dispute was the First‑Tier Tribunal’s application of the three‑stage RMC test – mutuality of obligation (limb 1), control (limb 2) and the overall balancing exercise (limb 3).

Counsel identified three principal errors: the tribunal wrongly concluded insufficient mutuality of obligation for limb 1, misdirected the control analysis by weighing irrelevant considerations for limb 2, and treated paragraph 174 as a standalone balancing judgment rather than a summary of the earlier limb findings. Additional points addressed part‑time employment realities, the right to terminate, and the applicability of section 151(2) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act, which bars contracting out of statutory sick‑pay obligations.

A striking quotation from the judgment underscored the tribunal’s stance: “standing back as we’re required to do, our conclusion is that there was insufficient mutuality of obligation and control in the individual engagements.” The speaker argued that this language merely restates the limb 1 and limb 2 deficiencies, not a fresh limb 3 assessment, and cited precedent where “sufficient” language consistently signals limb‑specific analysis.

The clarification matters because it refines how tribunals must parse the RMC test, influencing future determinations of employment status, tax liabilities, and entitlement to social‑security benefits. Misclassification risks costly appeals and reshapes employer‑employee risk assessments across gig‑economy and part‑time sectors.

Original Description

Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (Appellant)

UKSC/2021/0220

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0220.html

Hearing date: 27 June 2023

Session: Afternoon session [Session 4 of 4]

Judgment date: 16 September 2024

Neutral citation: [2024] UKSC 29