PGMOL: after nearly a decade, contractors win — what the verdict means for IR35
On 1 May 2026, the First-tier Tax Tribunal handed down its judgment in the PGMOL case (TC/2017/01162) — and the referees won. Judge Geraint Williams and Dr Phebe Dunn found the match engagements between PGMOL and its National Group referees were contracts for services, not contracts of employment.
For IR35 specialists, it is being described as the most important status decision of the last several years. For limited company contractors, it matters because of what the tribunal said about mutuality of obligation and control — two of the tests used to assess every IR35 engagement.
One caveat upfront: HMRC has 56 days from 1 May to seek permission to appeal. The case may not be entirely over. But the FTT's findings stand as authoritative guidance now.
Case Timeline: 2017–2026
How the case got here — the short version
The PGMOL case has been running since 2017, navigating through three levels of court before returning to the First-tier Tribunal for a final decision.
The case involved football referees engaged on a match-by-match basis for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 tax years. HMRC argued they were employed for tax purposes. The FTT initially disagreed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the FTT. The Supreme Court clarified the legal framework but sent the case back. And on 1 May 2026, the FTT made its final call: PGMOL wins.
What the FTT actually decided — the four findings
The tribunal identified four points that matter directly for contractors:
1. Mutuality and Control Don't Create Presumption of Employment
The Supreme Court confirmed the irreducible minima of mutuality and control were satisfied. HMRC argued this should start the RMC 3 evaluation from a presumption of employment.
The FTT rejected this. RMC 3 is a balanced evaluation of all facts — not a search for inconsistency with employment. The tribunal applied a qualitative, holistic approach with no presumption either way. This directly undermines HMRC's structured "three bucket" approach.
2. The Quality of Mutuality Matters — and Pointed Away from Employment
The Supreme Court confirmed a work/wage bargain existed within each individual match. But the FTT examined the quality of those obligations and found them — in its own words — "narrow, short-lived and suffused with choice."
Three facts did the heavy lifting:
- Referees could close off dates of unavailability for any reason
- They could decline match appointments freely
- Even after accepting, a referee could withdraw at any point without breach or sanction
This degree of choice within an engagement is the key finding for contractors. The existence of MOO at contract level does not automatically point toward employment — the nature and quality of that mutuality is what the tribunal weighs.
3. Regulatory Control ≠ Employer Control
PGMOL set standards, rules, and performance requirements for referees. HMRC argued this amounted to sufficient control to support employment.
The FTT disagreed: regulatory or professional standards control administered by an engager is not the same as employer control — particularly where the contractor's core professional function is insulated from real-time direction.
For IT contractors: A client setting output requirements, quality standards, or project parameters is not the same as a client directing how the work is done day-to-day. This distinction matters in many technology engagements.
4. Absence of Inter-Engagement Mutuality Is an Indicator of Independence
The tribunal applied the Windle principle (endorsed by the Supreme Court) and found that the absence of any obligation between assignments — no obligation to offer or accept future work — is an indicator of independence in its own right at RMC 3.
Not merely a feature of the gaps between contracts, but a positive factor pointing away from employment.
What this means for your IR35 status
The PGMOL verdict doesn't change the legislation or the underlying tests. What it does is clarify how those tests should be applied — and on three points, the clarification favours contractors.
Quality of mutuality is now firmly in play at RMC 3. The Supreme Court confirmed MOO exists in individual engagements. The FTT confirmed that doesn't end the analysis — the nature of that mutuality still matters. Contractors who retain genuine choice about when and how they work have a stronger position than this case looked like it might allow after the Supreme Court.
Regulatory control ≠ employer control. IT contractors whose clients set technical standards, approval gates, or quality requirements — without directing day-to-day method — are in a better position than a narrow reading might suggest.
HMRC's structured approach has been rejected. HMRC argued tribunals should categorise factors as consistent, inconsistent, or neutral with employment and tally them up. The FTT refused. The holistic, qualitative evaluation approach stands — which means no single factor is automatically decisive in either direction.
What hasn't changed: Good contracts and working practices that reflect genuine independence remain essential. The PGMOL win is a reminder that the evaluative exercise has teeth — but you still have to go through it.
Understand your IR35 position properly
An AutoBooks accountant can review your contract and working arrangement in light of the PGMOL findings.
Talk to an AutoBooks Accountant →Is this the end of the PGMOL case?
Not necessarily. HMRC has 56 days from 1 May 2026 to seek permission to appeal the FTT decision. Given the length and profile of this case, and the significance of the findings, an appeal is possible. The case has already been to the Supreme Court once.
If HMRC does appeal, the FTT's findings of fact are harder to overturn than points of law — the Supreme Court specifically noted this. The four findings above are factual conclusions, not legal propositions. That makes them more durable on appeal.
How AutoBooks helps contractors protect their outside IR35 position
Outside IR35 contracting is not set-and-forget. The PGMOL case — nearly a decade of litigation on two tax years — shows how seriously HMRC pursues status questions. The right response isn't to avoid outside IR35; it's to operate it correctly.
AutoBooks clients have clear, well-maintained company accounts that document the business's activities and income — part of the evidential record that matters in any HMRC enquiry. We also flag when contract terms or working arrangements create structural risk, and can refer clients to IR35 specialist reviewers where a contract needs independent assessment.
Get outside IR35 support from people who understand the case law
AutoBooks from £89/month — with specialist contractor accounting and ongoing IR35 monitoring.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happened in the PGMOL IR35 case?
On 1 May 2026, the First-tier Tax Tribunal ruled that PGMOL's match engagements with its National Group referees were contracts for services, not employment. After the Supreme Court confirmed the irreducible minima of mutuality and control were satisfied in 2024, the FTT conducted the multi-factorial RMC 3 evaluation and found the overall picture pointed away from employment.
What does PGMOL mean for IR35 contractors?
Four findings matter for contractors. First, satisfying the irreducible minima of mutuality and control doesn't create a presumption of employment. Second, the quality of mutuality matters at RMC 3 — if it is narrow and suffused with choice, it points away from employment. Third, regulatory control is not employer control. Fourth, the absence of inter-engagement mutuality is an independent indicator of independence.
Does the PGMOL result mean contractors are safer from HMRC investigation?
Not automatically. The FTT's findings clarify how the tests apply — they don't prevent HMRC from investigating. Contractors with well-structured outside IR35 arrangements, good contracts, and working practices that reflect genuine independence are in a stronger position. The PGMOL outcome supports that position; it doesn't replace it.
Could HMRC appeal the PGMOL FTT decision?
Yes. HMRC has 56 days from 1 May 2026 to seek permission to appeal. An appeal is possible given the profile of the case. The FTT's findings of fact are more durable on appeal than points of law, but the case may not be entirely over.
What is the Ready Mixed Concrete test in IR35?
The Ready Mixed Concrete (RMC) test is the three-stage framework courts use to assess employment status. RMC 1 assesses mutuality of obligation; RMC 2 assesses control; RMC 3 is the multi-factorial holistic evaluation of all other relevant circumstances. All three stages must be satisfied for there to be a contract of employment.
What is mutuality of obligation in IR35?
Mutuality of obligation refers to whether there is a mutual commitment between the parties — typically, the engager's obligation to provide work and the contractor's obligation to do it. The PGMOL case clarified that MOO can exist within individual short-term engagements, but the quality and extent of that mutuality still matters when assessing whether the overall relationship is one of employment.