MyPay Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 23 October 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 890 (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 Tribunal refused MyPay's late application to amend its grounds of appeal to add an alternative case that no contracts of employment existed, finding the proposed Additional Ground had no real prospect of success. The Tribunal held the written Contract and MyPay's consistent conduct could be read as either an overarching employment contract or separate assignment contracts, and MyPay failed to show how payments would be characterised if it were not the employer. The Tribunal allowed limited other amendments (grounds 3 and 4) and directed HMRC to serve an amended statement of case and permitted HMRC to remove reliance on Autoclenz.
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
A party seeking a very late amendment must satisfy a merits threshold analogous to summary judgment: the proposed amendment must be more than merely arguable and carry a degree of conviction. An appellant may advance alternative, inconsistent grounds, but such late alternatives must meet that merits test and must not cause undue prejudice; where the written contract and consistent prior conduct support a coherent characterisation, a party cannot rely on an unsupported alternative characterisation.
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 Tribunal observed limitations on applying the Autoclenz approach in tax/common-law employment disputes and noted tensions between Autoclenz, Uber and Atholl House authorities, but did not definitively resolve those doctrinal issues; estoppel by convention and time-limit prejudice were identified as potentially relevant defences to late amendments without a final decision on estoppel.