UK Supreme Court · [2024] UKSC 29

Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd

The Supreme Court sent the case back for the tribunal to decide the final status question on all the circumstances.

UK Supreme Court16 Sept 2024

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Use the linked official source for section-level detail, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

Flexibility before an assignment does not prevent employment obligations arising during an accepted assignment.
Part-time football referees could reject or cancel match appointments, but each accepted match still created mutual obligations and a sufficient framework of control for...

Use this to check

Separate the overarching relationship from each accepted assignment
A right to cancel without penalty does not erase obligations while the contract exists
Control can come from standards, assessment and disciplinary consequences

Decision snapshot

What happened
- PGMOL supplied referees for major English competitions.
- National Group referees usually had other jobs and officiated part-time.
- They could decline a match offered through scheduling software and could later cancel without contractual sanction.
- Once an appointment was accepted, the referee agreed to officiate and submit a report, while PGMOL agreed to pay the match fee.
What the court had to decide
- Did the ability of both sides to cancel before a match prevent the mutuality of obligation and control required for each match engagement to be a contract of employment?
What the court decided
- The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed PGMOL's appeal.
- The individual match contracts met the minimum mutuality requirement, and the contractual framework was capable of providing sufficient control.
- The Court did not finally decide that the referees were employees.

Practical impact

Practical read

Flexibility before an assignment does not prevent employment obligations arising during an accepted assignment.
Businesses using casual or assignment-by-assignment labour must assess each engagement and the real control framework, not rely only on a right to offer or refuse work.

Useful next steps

Separate the overarching relationship from each accepted assignment
A right to cancel without penalty does not erase obligations while the contract exists
Control can come from standards, assessment and disciplinary consequences
Worker status requires an overall assessment after minimum tests are met
Tax, employment-rights and contractual status questions need coordinated review

How the match-by-match arrangement worked

National Group referees worked part-time, usually alongside another occupation. PGMOL offered weekend matches through software, normally on the preceding Monday. A referee could decline, although PGMOL would typically ask why.

After accepting, either side could still cancel before the referee arrived at the ground. If the match went ahead, the referee officiated, submitted a match report and received a fee. The annual arrangement did not require PGMOL to offer a minimum number of matches or the referee to accept them.

Between matches	For an accepted match
No promise of future work	Referee agreed to officiate and report
No duty to accept an offer	PGMOL agreed to pay the match fee
Annual membership framework	A separate individual contract

Cancellation rights did not erase mutual obligations

The First-tier Tribunal had considered the ability to cancel without sanction inconsistent with the mutual obligations needed for employment. The Supreme Court disagreed.

Once an appointment was accepted, both parties had contractual obligations while the engagement remained on foot. The fact that either party could bring those obligations to an end did not mean they never existed. At the latest, the exchange of work for payment during the match and reporting period met the minimum requirement.

Control did not require directing every decision on the pitch

Referees exercise specialist judgment during a match. PGMOL could not realistically tell them which decision to make in real time. That did not end the control analysis.

The contractual framework governed conduct from acceptance through the match report. Referees had to meet fitness and training requirements, follow match-day procedures and professional standards, and could face assessment or discipline. Control can be expressed through that framework rather than constant direct instruction.

What the court focused on

Rules about how and when the work is performed
Qualification, training and fitness requirements
Assessment and performance-management systems
Reporting obligations after each assignment
Disciplinary or removal powers

How to audit a casual assignment model

Do not stop at the umbrella terms. Map what happens when a particular shift, project or job is accepted. Identify the personal-service obligation, payment promise, control rights and consequences of non-performance during that assignment.

The Supreme Court decided only two minimum elements and deliberately left final status to the tribunal. A business should do the same full analysis, including personal service, substitution, control, integration, financial risk and whether the arrangement is consistent with independent business activity.

Key points

Separate periods with no commitment from accepted work periods
Document who can substitute and how that right works in practice
Review standards, monitoring and discipline as forms of control
Compare payroll and tax treatment with the contractual model
Reassess status when the pattern of work becomes regular
Avoid telling workers the legal outcome before the facts are reviewed

Common questions

Did the Supreme Court rule that the referees were employees?

No. It held that minimum mutuality and control requirements were satisfied or capable of being satisfied for individual match contracts. The tribunal still had to decide the final status question using all relevant circumstances.

Does the right to refuse work prove self-employment?

No. It may mean there is no continuous obligation between assignments, but a separate employment contract can arise for an assignment once both sides commit to it.

Does control require minute-by-minute instructions?

No. A sufficient framework of control can arise from contractual standards, rules, assessment, reporting and sanctions even where specialist work is performed independently in the moment.

How Sprintlaw can help

Employment Law Commercial Contracts