Brett Convery v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 23 February 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 90 (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 Convery was an employed earner with G O'Brien & Sons Ltd (or any named individual) when he fell from a roof on 22 October 2002 and so entitled to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit. The First-tier Tribunal found the Company was not a contractor on the job, rejected that Mr Convery had a contract of service with the Company or with any named individuals, and disallowed the appeal, confirming HMRC's decision of 7 November 2006. The Tribunal also held it could not substitute a different named employer in the decision or advise on pursuing an amended disablement claim.
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 applied two points as its operative reasoning: (1) under the cited Social Security Contributions (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations a decision must state the name of every person in respect of whom it is made and the Tribunal cannot vary that named employer by substituting a different person; and (2) on the facts, inconsistent and insufficient evidence about payment arrangements, control and other indicia of employment supported the finding that Mr Convery was not under a contract of service with the Company or any of the named individuals.
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 it was not the Tribunal's role to advise the claimant whether to pursue an amended disablement claim naming another possible employer; it also noted that counsel's view and a civil judgment against a defendant did not by themselves establish employment for these purposes absent evidential findings.