← Back to guides

What the case was about

PGMOL stands for Professional Game Match Officials Ltd, the body that supplies referees to football. The referees in question officiated individual matches on a part-time basis. They could withdraw from an appointment before a match, and PGMOL could cancel, in each case without any sanction. HMRC argued that each individual match engagement could amount to a contract of employment. The question that reached the Supreme Court was whether mutuality of obligation and control could exist within a single, short, cancellable engagement at all.

This matters because mutuality of obligation, often shortened to MOO, has long been a cornerstone of contractor defences. The familiar argument runs: there is no obligation on the client to offer me more work, and no obligation on me to accept it, so there is no mutuality, so I cannot be an employee.

What the Supreme Court actually decided

The Supreme Court held that mutuality of obligation and sufficient control can exist within each individual engagement, even where there is no obligation between engagements, and even where either side can cancel before the work without penalty. In plain terms, the bar for mutuality is lower than many advisers had assumed. Mutual obligations arise from the moment an assignment is accepted, and a right to cancel without penalty does not negate mutuality while the contract is actually on foot.

It is important to be precise about what the court did not do. PGMOL did not decide that the referees were employees. It decided that mutuality of obligation and control were capable of being satisfied, and it sent the case back to the First-tier Tribunal to weigh the overall picture, the third limb of the long-standing Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions (1968) test. So the ruling is about which gate the case passes through, not the final verdict on those particular referees.

Why this weakens the no-mutuality argument

The practical effect is significant. For years, contractors on a run of short assignments, or with cancellation clauses in their contracts, have treated the absence of obligation between engagements as a strong outside-IR35 signal. PGMOL narrows that. If mutuality can be satisfied within a single engagement, then pointing to the gaps between engagements does much less work than it used to.

The first two limbs of the test, personal service and control, are now easier for HMRC to clear. That throws the weight of the whole question onto the third limb: whether you are genuinely in business on your own account. Our explainer on mutuality of obligation goes deeper into how MOO works and why CEST has always handled it poorly, and the implication after PGMOL is that CEST's weak treatment of MOO matters less than building a genuine in-business case.

What this means for your position

The takeaway is not despair. It is a shift in where your strongest arguments now live. The defences that have weakened are the technical ones: substitution clauses that are never used, no-mutuality clauses, an over-reliance on the cancellable nature of short engagements. The defence that has grown in importance is the demonstrable reality of running a business. Multiple clients, real financial risk, your own equipment, the ability to profit from how well you manage the work, marketing yourself as a business: these are the factors that now decide finely balanced cases.

In other words, the question has moved from "can I point to a clause that breaks the test?" to "can I show I am genuinely in business on my own account?" That is a harder question to answer with paperwork alone, and an easier one to answer if you actually operate as a business.

Seeing where you stand against the post-PGMOL landscape is exactly what our contract checker is for. It assesses your contract across six case law grounded dimensions, including mutuality of obligation and the in-business-on-own-account picture, and returns a probability based result with reasoning for each, rather than the single word CEST gives you. None of this is legal advice. It is built to help you understand your position before HMRC tests it.

Frequently asked questions

What did the PGMOL Supreme Court ruling decide? It decided that mutuality of obligation and sufficient control can exist within a single engagement, even where there is no obligation between engagements and either side can cancel without penalty. It did not decide that the referees were employees. It sent the overall evaluation back to the First-tier Tribunal.

Does PGMOL mean I am now inside IR35? No. It does not change your status directly. It changes which arguments carry weight. Relying on no mutuality between engagements is now weaker, so your position depends more on whether you are genuinely in business on your own account.

Is the no-mutuality argument dead after PGMOL? Not dead, but much weaker on its own. Pointing to gaps between engagements no longer does the work it once did, because mutuality can be satisfied within a single engagement. It is now one factor in the wider picture rather than a knockout point.

What should contractors focus on after PGMOL? The third limb of the test: being genuinely in business on your own account. Multiple clients, financial risk, your own equipment, and the ability to profit from sound management now carry more weight than technical clauses.

IR35 Verdict helps you understand your IR35 position. It does not provide legal or tax advice. Always consult a qualified contractor accountant before making decisions about your status.