Aramark Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 12 September 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 832 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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: high
This appeal considered whether Aramark Ltd was liable under the Host Employer Provisions (HEP) to pay secondary Class 1 NICs for 6 Aug 2011–5 Apr 2014 in respect of workers employed by Aramark US Offshore Services LLC (OSI) and working on UK offshore installations. The Tribunal held the HEP are aimed at secondment-type arrangements where the host effectively stands in the shoes of the employer by exercising substantive day-to-day control, and that on the facts Aramark exercised that control so OSI’s employees’ personal service was “made available” to and “rendered for” Aramark’s business. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s decision upheld.
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: high
The Tribunal’s ratio is that the HEP should be purposively construed to catch situations where a host exercises substantive day-to-day control over workers employed by a foreign employer so that those workers are assimilated into the host’s business (secondment-like situations). “Personal service” retains its conventional employment-law meaning; “made available” can be satisfied by placing workers at the host’s disposal, and the requirement that the service be “rendered for” the host imports that the host exercises day-to-day substantive control over how the personal service is performed.
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 indicates (obiter) that explanatory notes to negative-resolution regulations may be admissible as aids to statutory construction where they illuminate the statute’s purpose, and that the HEP operates on an all-or-nothing basis (no apportionment: the whole of a worker’s personal service in the period must be made available and rendered to the host).