Not sure if this is a good or bad thing for Deliveroo...but has this case just set a precedent that simply having the right to send a substitution is a key pointer for not being employed? Ergo, simply having a contractual right to substitution (whether you've ever used it or not) could be equally as important in an IR35 case?
I realise this was sort of already the case, but does this make it harder for HMRC to make the whole "sham clause" attack?
I realise this was sort of already the case, but does this make it harder for HMRC to make the whole "sham clause" attack?
Comment