<get the last word in> placeholder
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Substitution???
Collapse
X
-
-
the validity of any substitution clause is key in the CEST assessment and also in those of QDOS et al. So, the courts might not place the utmost of importance on it, but CEST and QDOS certainly do.Originally posted by northernladuk View PostNo.
And there will never be one. A case will not hinge on one point alone. It's too complex and a multitude of factors will need to be consider to make a judgement. I would have though if there was anyone on gods earth that would know this it would be you.
And another point, it's also even more unlikely to happen as substitution is less important as the other pillars, judges have commented on it and even Kate Cottrell has admitted it as so.
Anything to add to this thread that's useful now JtB or are you done?Comment
-
-
If you told the client that you will be off for a few days and have not sent a substitute, then most likely that invalidates the clause (according to guidance).Comment
-
A sub for 6 days? Really?Originally posted by elsergiovolador View PostIf you told the client that you will be off for a few days and have not sent a substitute, then most likely that invalidates the clause (according to guidance).'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!
Comment
-
I know, crazy. It seems like the rules are created so that they can say it doesn't affect freelancers, but in reality it makes running a company that provides services next to impossible.Originally posted by northernladuk View PostA sub for 6 days? Really?
Another one I like is the one that says when you build a project that integrates with client other systems, then that automatically means you work under direction. The same if the client has any standards that projects need to adhere to, e.g. 12 factor.
That's why HMRC is so fixated on their wrong interpretation of MOO, as all this nonsense hinges on that. One can hope their PGMOL appeal gets rejected.Comment
-
What says that?Originally posted by elsergiovolador View PostAnother one I like is the one that says when you build a project that integrates with client other systems, then that automatically means you work under direction. The same if the client has any standards that projects need to adhere to, e.g. 12 factor.Comment
-
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- IT contractor demand lunged towards growth in April 2026 May 13 04:48
- What does PGMOL’s win over HMRC mean for contractors? May 12 07:25
- Contractors eyeing mortgages ‘unrealistic about BoE’s 3.75% hold decision’ May 11 07:50
- The fake job problem is getting worse. Are contractors a particularly easy target? May 8 07:49
- Government policy on freelancing is stopping the contractor model from doing its thing May 7 08:12
- Contractors, can the new HMRC loan charge settlement opportunity reduce your bill? May 6 07:51
- PGMOL’s ‘not finely balanced’ win over HMRC could be ‘persuasive’ in IR35 cases May 5 07:10
- Is Reporting Company Payments to Participators a concerning consultation for contractors? Apr 29 07:38
- Now it’s finally here, how is HMRC Joint & Several Liability risk being managed, and is payment control the holy grail? Apr 28 06:55
- How Managed Service Providers (MSPs) are hit by HMRC’s Joint & Several Liability Apr 27 06:08

Comment