The "Conduct Reg's" are virtually unenforceable against your intermediary

[DirtyDog]

Is there a link to the Clearwater judgement? I can only find the CUK article easily.

This judgement may or may not be significant for future cases (I am thinking not from what has been posted here) but, without seeing a transcript of the case we are unable to make an informed decision - do you know whether or not this is available Rory?

Even a court reference would be a start - R v Contractors Network Ltd? R v Jason Howlett?

If this sets a precedent, as you keep saying, it would be useful to have a transcript or even a court reference so that we can read it ourselves.

It's been asked a number of times in the thread without any answer, so all anyone has to go on is the CUK article and the posts from a director of the company involved.

What's the trial reference? Is there a transcript available?

[Rory Dwyer]

Right. So I've been getting that wrong for the last 15 years as well then...

Yes he may, if he signs up to be in such a contract. I don't, I deliberately sign up for a contract for services and deliver those services in that context with the agreement of my clients. Unless that contract is a complete sham - which according to your logic it can never be since any clause or statement it contains can be set aside at the whim of an external judiciary so it doesn't really matter what is says - then I am outside IR35. QED.

Seriously it's not me that's getting it wrong. You're the one arguing that the verdict in a specific case judged on the basis of a previous superior ruling can then influence the outcome of a number of other dissimilar ones. It can't. The referenced superior ruling may not even be relevant to those other cases.

And I note you still haven't defended your assertion that stating something in a contract doesn't have an effect if it conflicts with a legal definition and so can be ignored. Maybe so, but it still renders the entire contract a sham.

Dear Malvolio,

If what you are asserting is correct they would be no need for the Intermediaries legislation or business entity tests. Those cases are heard to determine just that, whether the contract was one of service or for service. If you write up a contract which states that that it is a contract for service and a judge rules it is a contract of service, does it negate to be a contract ? or does it negate the entire contract ? or does it amend the treatment of the contract and certain provisions and clauses within it ? Can it not be determined by the reality of a situation i.e. substitution over what is written into the contract.

I'll let you answer that one for yourself.

The truth of the matter is that it is never known until a judge judges what he believes it is and unless he has erred in law or has come to the wrong conclusion based on the facts before him at trial, and then subject to appeal, it is what it is.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Even a court reference would be a start - R v Contractors Network Ltd? R v Jason Howlett?

Indeed it would - doesn't look like we're going to get it though

[Rory Dwyer]

Indeed it would - doesn't look like we're going to get it though

Dear Lisa,

You have got it already, Regina V's Contractors Network Limited, 17th & 18th 2013 December Guildford Magistrates Court, I thought you were trying to be funny, like the screwed/sued comment.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Dear Lisa,

You have got it already, Regina V's Contractors Network Limited, 17th & 18th 2013 December Guildford Magistrates Court, I thought you were trying to be funny, like the screwed/sued comment.

OK thanks - doesn't seem to be available on line from what I can see. I never try to be funny.

[northernladuk]

OK thanks - doesn't seem to be available on line from what I can see. I never try to be funny.

Oh which of the many responses that spring to mind should I use? Or maybe apply some self preservation and just

[Andy Hallett]

Very interesting thread which I will flip to my legal guys for their view. I do however think the thread title is misleading, having been to court personally on these matters I know the Regulations to be very enforceable in many circumstances.

[malvolio]

Dear Malvolio,

I'll let you answer that one for yourself.

.

Dead easy. If you give me a contract that doesn't reflect the reality on the ground and/or align to the one you have signed with the end client and I wind up in court as a result, then I'll sue you for the consequent losses under boring old company law; contracts have to be reasonable and relevant with respect to the situation.

Getting bored now. You've had your fun, nobody's listening any more. And don't you have a real job to be getting on with? After all agencies are always telling us they're too busy to engage with us mere contractors.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Oh which of the many responses that spring to mind should I use? Or maybe apply some self preservation and just

[DirtyDog]

Very interesting thread which I will flip to my legal guys for their view. I do however think the thread title is misleading, having been to court personally on these matters I know the Regulations to be very enforceable in many circumstances.

S3 v CNL



I really don't know who I'd want to prevail in that one...