S & L Barnes Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 20 January 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 42 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: medium
This appeal concerned whether IR35 applied to services provided by Mr Stuart Barnes through his personal service company to Sky between 2013 and 2019. The Tribunal found the intermediary provisions of ITEPA s49 applied (client, worker, intermediary) and that the hypothetical contract satisfied mutuality of obligation and sufficient control, but on a multi‑factorial assessment of the contractual terms and factual matrix the engagement would not have been a contract of employment. The HMRC determinations were set aside and the appeal allowed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
When construing the hypothetical contract under ITEPA s49 the tribunal proceeds from the actual contractual terms but may take into account the factual matrix known or reasonably available to both parties at the time; while the first two Ready Mixed Concrete limbs (mutuality of obligation and control) are necessary they do not automatically establish employment—the third limb requires a multi‑factorial balancing of contract terms and surrounding circumstances.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment suggests that a worker’s public reputation and longstanding external engagements, if known or reasonably available to the client, are relevant to the third Ready Mixed Concrete limb. It also indicates that an annual fixed fee for a "first call" arrangement can, in appropriate cases where on‑air days vary and the worker retains autonomy, be characterised as a block premium rather than salary‑like remuneration.