Outside IR35 PS contract

[Andy Hallett]

Correct, but I wouldn't touch a contract with such broad transfer of liability clauses, enforceable or otherwise. Guff clauses are often used as leverage via threats to test them, and that could be an expensive game. Never sign a contract with crap that shouldn't be there.

Fair enough. My point was that these are likely generic.

[jamesbrown]

Fair enough. My point was that these are likely generic.

Yep, understood, just noting that it's best to get them removed. Happens a lot with non-compete clauses too - best to get them removed from the start, because they're generally unenforceable unless there's some specific/concrete knowledge that needs to be protected.

[Semtex]

Sounds to me that Agencies need to up their game and make sure that new contracts have had due diligence applied.

Saying these are just generic terms is not good enough TBH

[LondonManc]

Sounds to me that Agencies need to up their game and make sure that new contracts have had due diligence applied.

Saying these are just generic terms is not good enough TBH

The agencies have been duly diligent. They're trying their hardest to pass the liability down the line. Whatever way Andy tries to dress it up, that clause can be seen as a way for agencies to declare outside then pass the buck.

It's pretty much been my concern all along - how responsible for the fine/back tax will the agency be? While it's a generic clause, I'd want an extra clause inserting, confirm that "the above clause in no way exonerates the agency from its financial obligations should the contract later be deemed inside IR35 while initially being declared outside IR35."