Dr George Mantides had a long wait just to lose his IR35 case

Readers of ContractorUK may remember the case of George Mantides, the urologist who was challenged by HMRC as inside IR35.  

A good memory is needed to remember the IR35 case of the good doctor

I say ‘may’ intentionally, because his case first went to tribunal back in 2019 following an IR35 tax bill for working practices as far back as 2013 – some 12 years ago.

To bring you right up to speed, in 2025, the Upper Tribunal this month published an IR35 ruling against him and in HMRC’s favour, writes David Harmer, a director at Markel Tax.

How the Upper Tribunal just found Mantides inside IR35: Origin story

But first, at the FTT in 2019, Mantides’ engagements with two hospitals; Royal Berkshire (RBH) and Medway Maritime (MMH) were considered.

The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) concluded that the appeal by the urologist’s limited company, George Mantides Limited (GML), against HMRC’s inside IR35 determination did succeed in respect of the MMH engagement.

But in a split-decision, it also held that the RBH engagement was akin to employment, and therefore inside IR35.

GML appealed the decision to the Upper Tribunal. 

As we have advised previously, it is important to remember that the Upper Tribunal (UT) is an appellate court which can only hear grounds of appeal made to it on points of law. Therefore, it does not simply re-hear all the facts of the case.

What grounds of appeal in Mantides v HMRC at the UT?

GML provided three accepted grounds of appeal which were that, as far as the RBH engagement was concerned, the FTT made errors in law on the following:

1. The hypothetical contract contained a provision under which RBL had to give GML one week’s notice;
2. The hypothetical contract obliged RBL to use reasonable endeavours to provide 10 half days sessions or works to GML;
3. Due to the errors of 1 & 2 (above), the FTT erroneously concluded the hypothetical contract was one of employment.

This appeal was heard in part in 2021, where the UT found that the FTT did indeed make errors in respect of 1 and 2, above.

Effectively, the FTT was not entitled to conclude as it did, based on the facts established.

The Mantides case has an important twist

Back in 2021, the UT did not conclude the hearing, however.

Instead, it considered that before it could reach a conclusion as to appeal ground 3 (above), it should wait for the Supreme Court to hand down its decision in the case of PGMOL.

Having had the benefit of the PGMOL decision, the UT continued its consideration of GML’s appeal in February 2025. 

It is an important aspect of this case that the UT were only seeking to address whether, and to what extent, the errors of 1 and 2 (above) had on the overall decision that the engagement was one of employment. 

Findings, focus, facts

The findings of the FTT that personal service was required and a framework of control existed were not matters which were affected; the UT’s focus was therefore on mutuality of obligations and the extent to which mutuality of obligations may exist.

The UT held that in light of the fact there was no requirement for one weeks’ notice and that there was no obligation to provide work, this might make a difference to the FTT’s decision. 

In their conclusion nonetheless, they found that these factors did not materially establish that mutuality of obligations did not exist, and that taken in context with the other facts established, they did not disturb the overall finding that the contract was one of employment.

What contractors can learn from GML v HMRC

This case firmly follows the principles set out in PGMOL of the application of the ‘Ready Mixed Concrete’ tests whereby one must establish first and second stage tests (Personal Service and Mutuality of Obligations; and then Control) and then move on to examine stage 3.

And stage three is looking at all the terms and conditions established to determine the nature and extent of stages one and two.

In the Mantides case, the UT having determined that the initial mutuality of obligation found by the FTT remained, they then considered whether the errors they found made a material difference to the nature and extent of that mutuality of obligations finding.

No notice and lack of obligation didn’t cut it for Dr Mantides

PGMOL, as a Supreme Court decision, is binding on all lower courts and must be followed; which is exactly what was done here – rather disappointingly, we imagine, for Dr Mantides.

The reality in GML V HMRC was that no notice and lack of obligation (on RBH) to provide works did not override all the other factors of control, personal service and MoO already determined.

Interestingly, in isolation, these two points alone would not sway a competent IR35 adviser to determine an outside IR35 position either.

Why such limited grounds of appeal?

The biggest problem for Dr Mantides was that this case was limited to just those grounds of appeal.

It is unclear from the judgment why other grounds could not be put forward. N.B. From the information contained in the FTT judgment it would appear potential grounds of appeal in respect of the extent of ‘control’ could have been advanced -- however that is purely my opinion as an external IR35 adviser looking in at the case, and perhaps there was little to support a ground of appeal on control.

Finally, GML v HMRC has ‘PGMOL’ written all over it; your review must follow suit...

GML versus HMRC at the Upper Tribunal certainly demonstrates the way that the tribunals will continue to direct themselves following PGMOL.

And this should serve as a stark warning to contractors and engagers to ensure they have re-reviewed (and updated where necessary) their written contracts following the PGMOL decision. What once may have been reliable in terms of mutuality of obligations and control may not provide the robust defence it once did.