Marlen Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 24 June 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 411 (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 concerned whether Mr Hughes, supplied to JCB via his company Marlen Ltd and an agency, was an employee of JCB for IR35 purposes. The First-tier Tribunal found there was no mutuality of obligation and the degree of control was insufficient for employment, and on balance other factors were neutral or slightly pointed to self‑employment. The Tribunal allowed Marlen Ltd's appeal and did not uphold the IR35 determinations for the periods considered.
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 dispositive reasoning was that where an engagement can be and in practice was terminated or unpaid mid‑term, and the client exercised insufficient day‑to‑day control over the worker, there is no mutuality of obligation and no contract of employment; accordingly the relationship should be treated as a contract for services for IR35 purposes.
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 suggested, without forming part of the decisive ratio, that provision of some workplace equipment and a degree of integration into a team are neutral indicators and do not alone establish employee status, and that a contractual right of substitution not exercised and effectively controlled by the agency/client may carry limited weight.