IR35 Case Law

The IR35 legislation, officially known as the Off-Payroll Working rules, was introduced in 2000 to tackle tax avoidance by individuals who supply their services to clients through intermediaries like personal service companies (PSCs) but would be classed as employees if hired directly. Over the years, many IR35 cases have been decided by courts, each adding clarity to how IR35 is applied in various scenarios.

These cases, alongside longstanding employment status rulings, reveal the complexity of determining IR35 status. Courts must assess the overall picture by examining key factors such as control, mutuality of obligation (MOO), right of substitution, financial risk, and whether the individual is genuinely in business on their own account. Each case provides valuable lessons for contractors and engagers on how status is evaluated, demonstrating the evolving interpretation of the legislation.

It’s important to note that legal precedent -the binding principle established by a legal ruling – is only created by higher appeal courts, with each court bound by the decisions of those above it. While rulings from First-tier Tribunals are useful in clarifying how IR35 is interpreted, they do not set binding precedent.

Notably, much of the IR35 case law builds on previous employment status cases rather than IR35-specific rulings. Key decisions such as Ready Mixed Concrete, Hall v Lorimer, Autoclenz, and the Professional Game Match Officials case continue to play a crucial role in how courts assess employment relationships.

Below, you’ll find a comprehensive list of all IR35 cases heard since the legislation was introduced in 2000, along with summaries of the key factors that influenced each decision. The rising number of litigated cases shows HMRC’s increasing focus on enforcing these rules year-on-year.

FTT: First Tier Tribunal

UT: Upper Tribunal

COA: Court of Appeal

SC: Supreme Court

Basic Broadcasting Ltd v HMRC (Adrian Chiles at ITV & BBC)

Court(s): FTT, UT, FTT again
Year Decided: TBC
Winner: Contractor initially – final outcome TBC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerns television and radio presenter Adrian Chiles, and his engagements with both ITV and BBC covering the tax years 2012/13 and 2016/17, with a potential £1.7 million liability. Chiles had been a longstanding figure at the BBC and had worked for them as an employee since 1992 – at BBC’s request, Chiles incorporated a company in 1996 and continued in that capacity. Over seven years of investigation followed, complicated by delays when the original judge contracted long Covid, requiring part of the case to be reheard and further evidence submitted.

Key findings from the case included MOO and personal service being present, and that both ITV and BBC exercised editorial control over Chiles’ work. However, a central issue was whether he was “in business on his own account” (IBOOA). Chiles had an agent, a personal assistant, and 25 other clients during the relevant period, and the court found that while he was integrated into the programmes he was not integrated into the broader businesses of BBC and ITV. While the FTT initially ruled in his favour, HMRC appealed, and the UT allowed the appeal, citing that the FTT failed to consider the overall hypothetical contracts and focused to heavily on Chiles being IBOOA. The case has now been remitted back to the FTT for a re-hearing. You can read our analysis on the case here.

Ralc Consulting Ltd v HMRC (Richard Alcock, IT contractor at DWP & Accenture)

Court(s): FTT, UT, FTT again
Year Decided: TBC
Winner: Contractor initially – final outcome TBC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerns Richard Alcock, operating through his company Ralc Consulting Ltd, for work with DWP & Accenture during the period from April 2010 to April 2015. The case revolved primarily around the issue of MOO, which HMRC’s argument failed to prove. Alcock, a former employee of Accenture, had worked on DWP projects both during his employment and under his contracts through Ralc Consulting Ltd.

Key findings included that Alcock only billed for work agreed at the outset, with one project ending unexpectedly early and resulting in no further pay – indicating no guarantee of work. He could reject work if offered and had control over how he performed his services, working from his own commercial premises without exclusivity or a minimum volume of work. Although certain rights of substitution appeared limited, the lack of MOO was decisive. The FTT “stood back” and considered whether Alcock was in business on his own account, ultimately concluding the contracts were outside IR35.

However, HMRC appealed and the UT found that the FTT had erred in law, particularly in its construction of the hypothetical contract and approach to MOO. The case has been referred back to the FTT to reconsider its decision. You can read our analysis of the case here.

George Mantides Ltd v HMRC (George Mantides at Medway Martime Hopsital and Royal Berkshire Hospital)

Court(s): FTT, UT
Year Decided: TBC
Winner: Mixed – final outcome TBC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerns George Mantides and his services as a urologist at two hospitals in the 2013 tax year. The FTT reached a split decision – the engagement with MMH was found to be outside IR35 due to factors such as the right to substitute, which was exercised, and a one-day notice period. However, the engagement with RBH was found to be inside IR35 – key factors included the personal service requirement with no right of substitution, control over what work he did and when, though this control was considered weak. The contract implied mutual obligations: Mantides was expected to work 10 half-day sessions per week, and RBH was expected to make reasonable efforts to provide work, which the tribunal saw as sufficient MOO.

Mantides appealed to the UT on the basis that the FTT had erred in law regarding the RBH engagement. The UT agreed with Mantides on two grounds, but a key issue concerning MOO could not be decided until the conclusion of the PGMOL case, of which centred around the correct interpretation of MOO. HMRC also sought to appeal the MMH decision but filed too late. The PGMOL decision was published in September 2024, so we would now expect the conclusion of Mantides’ UT case to follow.

S&L Barnes Ltd v HMRC (Stuart Barnes at Sky TV)

Court(s): FTT, UT
Year Decided: 2024
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Stuart Barnes, ex rugby player turned rugby commentator, and his contracts with Sky covering the years 2013-2019. Barnes provided services to Sky for 25 years under two separate contracts during the period in question. The FTT ruled that Barnes fell outside IR35, largely based on the “in business on own account” (IBOOA) principle. Key findings included the presence of MOO and sufficient control, but Barnes had significant autonomy in how he performed his work and was seen as an expert in his field and the “voice of rugby”. While Sky’s producers had the final say on topics covered, Barnes had a high degree of creative latitude and control over his commentary style. Importantly, Barnes retained intellectual property rights over his opinions, which he reproduced elsewhere, and worked for other clients including The Times and Sunday Times. Sky had first call on his services but did not restrict him from other work except for direct competition during the same game. He was paid a fixed fee irrespective of the number of days worked.

HMRC appealed to the UT, where the focus shifted to the legal interpretation of the contractual relationship between Barnes and Sky. The UT emphasised the “hypothetical contract” under the Ready Mixed Concrete test, which assesses the right of control and MOO based on the contractual terms, rather than the day-to-day reality of working practices. While the FTT focused on Barnes’ autonomy and his broader engagements, the UT examined Sky’s contractual control, such as their discretion over Barnes’ work schedule and editorial decisions. Although Barnes had significant creative freedom, the UT found that Sky retained sufficient control, particularly regarding the framework of the contract, which leaned towards an employment-like relationship under IR35. Read our comments on this case here.

McCann Media Ltd v HMRC (Neil McCann at Sky Sports)

Court(s): FTT, UT
Year Decided: 2024
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: Football commentator & presenter Neil McCann’s IR35 case concerned the tax years 2013 to 2018, with a liability of £200,000. Key factors in the case included that McCann was paid a fixed monthly amount regardless of how many days he actually worked, there was no genuine right of substitution, and the required level of MOO was present. Sky also exercised a sufficient degree of control over his work, including specifying the format, structure, and timing of what he delivered. Furthermore, McCann was restricted in his ability to work for other clients, reinforcing the argument that he could not be considered in business on his own account. HMRC won and McCann was found to be inside IR35.

McCann appealed the outcome and the UT again ruled in favour of HMRC, rejecting all three grounds of McCann’s appeal. The fact that he received a fixed fee irrespective of the amount of work completed played a key role in the decision, further supporting the conclusion that the contracts fell within IR35. You can read our report on the case here.

PD & MJ Ltd v HMRC (Phil Thompson at Sky Sports)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2023
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: Thompson was a football pundit working for Sky Sports, with the contracts in question being for the period of 2014-2018. The FTT found that mutual obligations existed between Thompson and Sky, requiring him to provide services and Sky to pay an agreed fee. Sky also exercised significant control, dictating the location and nature of his performance, supporting the argument for an employment relationship.

Additional factors such as the nature of Thompson’s work as a pundit, restrictions on exploiting his opinions, and his integral role on Soccer Saturday pointed toward employment. Despite the lack of perks and benefits, the fact that 80% of his company’s income came from Sky further indicated he wasn’t broadly self-employed. Although the block payment structure was neutral, the FTT ultimately ruled these factors supported IR35 applying. Read our full analysis of this case here.

Atholl House Productions Ltd v HMRC (Kaye Adams at the BBC)

Court(s): FTT, UT, COA, FTT again
Year Decided: 2023
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The Atholl House case involving TV and rwadio presenter Kaye Adams, is one of the most significant IR35 cases in history and one of the first to reach the Court of Appeal. The case went through 4 courts, all of which were won by Adams, for the final time in 2023. The case shaped the way that subsequent IR35 cases were heard, particularly in the courts’ approach to control, MOO and being in business on ones own account.

The case initially covered four tax years (2014-2017) but later focused on just 2016 and 2017, with a £124k tax liability at stake. The FTT found that despite some elements pointing towards being inside IR35, such as the BBC’s editorial control and lack of substitution rights, Adams’ “in business on her own account” (IBOOA) status was significant. She had a freelance career spanning 20 years, earned only 50% of her income from the BBC, and showed intent to be self-employed.

HMRC’s appeal was dismissed by the Upper Tribunal (UT), but at the Court of Appeal (COA), HMRC argued that the IBOOA test should be given less weight and considered alongside other factors, such as the terms of hypothetical contracts with the BBC. The COA ruled that the UT had wrongly prioritised Adams’ broader career status over the specific terms of her engagements with the BBC, siding with HMRC. However, HMRC lost its argument on MOO. The case was referred back to the FTT for reconsideration, with the emphasis on looking at the specific engagements rather than the contractor’s overall career.

The second FTT hearing concluded that the indicators of self-employment outweighed those of employment, reinforcing Adams’ status as outside IR35. HMRC chose not to appeal this decision further, effectively ending the case. Read our full analysis of this case here.

Red White & Green Ltd v HMRC (Eamonn Holmes at ITV)

Court(s): FTT, UT
Year Decided: 2023
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerns TV presenter Eamonn Holmes and his engagements with ITV during the tax years 2011/12 and 2014/15. Holmes worked for ITV for around 15 years, with no substitution rights, and there was agreement between both parties on the existence of MOO. ITV had significant control over his work, including the content, format, and timing of his shows, in line with Ofcom rules, which was deemed sufficient to establish control under IR35. ITV also provided Holmes with benefits typical of employment, such as a car and driver, clothing allowances, insurance coverage, and assistance with invoicing, all of which indicated a relationship more akin to employment than self-employment. Importantly, ITV would still pay him even if a show was cancelled, and the payments were made before contracts were signed, further suggesting the nature of an employment relationship.

Holmes challenged the FTT decision in the UT, arguing that the FTT had erred in conflating ITV’s editorial control (the “how” of his work) with broader control elements (the “what”). However, the UT upheld the FTT’s judgment, ruling that the FTT had made an appropriate evaluative judgment. The framework of control was sufficient to meet the IR35 criteria, and there was no legal basis for the UT to overturn the decision. This case reaffirmed that ITV’s level of control and the employment-like benefits Holmes received indicated that he should be considered inside IR35 for those tax years.

Alan Parry Productions Ltd v HMRC (Alan Parry at BSkyB)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2022
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Alan Parry working through his company, Alan Parry Productions Ltd, for BSkyB during the period of the 2013–2019 tax years. The MOO and control tests were satisfied, which played a significant role in determining the outcome.

Parry had worked for Sky for 26 years and had never sent a substitute, with 96-100% of his working time dedicated to them. Sky exerted substantial control over him, including restrictions on his social media and retention of all intellectual property rights. Sky also dictated what, how, when, and where he worked. Parry received a monthly fee and expenses whether he worked or not, and Sky had first call on his services. Evidence provided by Sky strongly supported HMRC’s arguments. In 2019, Parry went onto Sky’s payroll. The case ran for six years.

Kickabout Productions Ltd v HMRC (Paul Hawksbee at Talksport)

Court(s): FTT, UT, COA
Year Decided: 2022
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Paul Hawksbee, working for Talksport through his company, Kickabout Productions Ltd (KPL), and involved an IR35 liability of £140k for the tax years 2012/2013, 2013/2014, and 2014/2015. This case, heard alongside Atholl House at the COA, was one of the first IR35 cases to reach this level, and HMRC won both cases. Hawksbee’s appeal centred on challenging the decision of the UT and seeking a ‘remake’ of the UT’s 2019 decision, which he claimed incorrectly concluded that KPL was not obliged to provide services to Talksport. However, this was rejected by the COA, with Judge Richards dismissing the appeal, stating there was no merit in this ground.

The COA upheld the UT’s finding that the contracts between KPL and Talksport contained MOO, where Talksport was required to provide work and Hawksbee, via KPL, was obligated to perform his presenting services. Hawksbee was contracted to provide his services exclusively for a minimum of 222 days per year over two years, for a three-hour radio show, with a four-month notice period on his end but immediate termination rights for Talksport. The court also noted that Talksport had priority over his services, with other terms resembling employment.

Other key findings emphasised that Hawksbee had worked with Talksport for 18 years, making him “part and parcel” of their operations. During the appeal period, 90% of his income came from Talksport, and though he had some creative freedom over the format of the show, he was still subject to Talksport’s rules and Ofcom guidelines. The lack of strict control over his daily activities was not enough to disprove an inside IR35 status. Substitution was not applicable due to the nature of his work, and his days off had to be agreed upon with Talksport, reinforcing the control element.

Marlen Ltd v HMRC (Gary Hughes at JC Bamford Excavators Ltd)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2022
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Gary Hughes, who provided engineering, design, and drafting services through his company Marlen Ltd for JC Bamford Excavators Ltd. The long-running dispute, believed to have started in 2007, centred on key factors that distinguished Hughes from an employee. Notably, his contracts were terminated early, there were no restrictions on when he could take holidays, he had no fixed working hours, and he was not paid when the company’s IT systems were down.

The FTT highlighted the lack of control over how Hughes performed his work, as well as the absence of MOO. Despite working in a mixed team alongside permanent employees with similar skills, these factors were enough for the FTT to conclude that Hughes was distinct from the employees and outside IR35.

Little Piece of Paradise Ltd v HMRC (Dave Clark at Sky TV)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2021
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case of Dave Clark, operating through Little Piece of Paradise Ltd, highlights the dangers of relying solely on strong contracts to stay outside IR35. Clark, a sports presenter at Sky TV from 2013-2018, faced a £281k tax liability across three contracts, despite arguments that his role was autonomous. The FTT found overwhelming evidence against him, with MOO and Sky’s control of his work being central to the decision. Although Clark had worked with Sky since 1988 and incorporated his company at their request in 2003, the working arrangements, not the contracts, were decisive.

The FTT found that Clark was paid a fixed yearly fee regardless of work completed, had restrictions on working for others, and was subject to Sky’s control. Despite some autonomy in how he conducted interviews, Sky dictated ‘what’ tasks he undertook which was viewed as more important as the ‘how’. Sky’s control was further evident through the provision of equipment, clothing, and scheduling, which contributed to Clark being deemed inside IR35. Even with the use of some of his own equipment and studio, he was not seen as operating a genuine independent business.

Northern Lights Solutions Ltd v HMRC (Robert Lee at Nationwide)

Court(s): FTT, UT
Year Decided: 2021
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Project Manager Robert Lee working at Nationwide through his company, Northern Lights Solutions Ltd, for the periods of 2012-2015, resulting in a £70k tax liability. Before incorporating his company, Lee worked with Nationwide through an umbrella company for six months. His role involved working on regulatory and transformation projects.

The FTT found no genuine right of substitution and the existence of MOO over the seven-year relationship. Nationwide exercised substantial control over Lee’s work, with the right to dictate where he worked and governance over how his projects were managed. He was required to work 7.5 hours a day and was fully integrated into a team of both permanent employees and contractors, where he was responsible for allocating tasks. The FTT also found that Lee faced very little financial risk, akin to an employee, as he worked almost continuously for Nationwide from 2007, with only a few short breaks during that time. Lee appealed the FTT’s decision, but it was upheld by the UT.

Canal Street Productions Ltd v HMRC (Helen Fospero at ITV)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2019
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned television presenter Helen Fospero, working for ITV through her company, Canal Street Productions Ltd, during the periods 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, resulting in an £80.7k tax liability. Fospero had incorporated her company in 2002 at the BBC’s request. The FTT focused on three areas: MOO, control, and other significant factors. There was no contractual right for her to provide a substitute; ITV would find a replacement themselves – however, the following factors resulted in Fospero winning her case.

It was found that ITV accounted for 74% of Fospero’s income, but she also had 10-20 other clients. There was insufficient MOO as she was not required to accept further work from ITV, nor were they obligated to provide any. There was no payment during absences. While ITV had editorial control over the content, they did not control where, when, or how she prepared for her presentations, nor the exact words she used – this was standard for all presenters. Fospero provided her own equipment, including a laptop and earpiece, had no fixed office or ITV email, and received no expense allowance from ITV. Additionally, Canal Street Productions continued trading before and after her ITV contracts, and the company hired an agent to seek other work for her.

Christa Ackroyd Media Ltd v HMRC (Christa Ackroyd at BBC)

Court(s): FTT, UT
Year Decided: 2019
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned television journalist Christa Ackroyd, working for the BBC through her company, Christa Ackroyd Media Ltd, which resulted in a £400k tax liability. Ackroyd set up her company on the recommendation of the BBC. The tribunal’s decision focused on the significant level of control exercised by the BBC, as they dictated which stories she covered, who she interviewed, and ultimately controlled the content through its editorial guidelines and the role of its editor.

There was also MOO, as Ackroyd was paid a regular monthly fee, and her seven-year contract provided her with secure, regular income. She was not allowed to work for other broadcasters without the BBC’s consent, had no right to substitute another presenter, and although she had other clients, the income was not significant enough to counterbalance the nature of her contract with the BBC.

Paya Ltd, Tim Willcox Ltd & Allday Media Ltd v HMRC (Joanna Gosling, Tim Willcox & David Eades, BBC presenters)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2019
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: This combined case concerned Joanna Gosling, Tim Willcox, and David Eades, television presenters working for the BBC News and World channels, and involved a lengthy 8-year process to reach the FTT. The presenters were required by the BBC to set up limited companies and were ultimately found not to have acted carelessly. The case was decided on grounds similar to those in the Christa Ackroyd case, with the FTT concluding that there was “sufficient mutuality and at least a sufficient framework of control” to place their relationships with the BBC within IR35.

The BBC had a contractual obligation to call on the presenters for a minimum number of days and pay their full contract fee regardless of how many services were provided. Similarly, the presenters were obliged, through their companies, to provide services for the specified minimum number of days, and they were required to comply with the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, with the BBC having ultimate control over their work.

Big Bad Wolf Ltd v HMRC (Actor Robert Glenister, various clients)

Court(s): FTT, UT
Year Decided: 2019
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case of Robert Glenister and his company Big Bad Wolf Ltd against HMRC, which led to a £150k National Insurance Contributions (NIC) liability for the period 2004-2014, focused on statutory construction rather than a typical IR35 appeal. The central issue was the interaction between the NIC Categorisation Regulations and the IR35 regulations. Glenister’s company argued that entire categories of workers, particularly entertainers, should be exempt from NIC liability when working through a company, based on the NIC Categorisation Regulations.

Glenister’s argument was that entertainers, along with others such as lecturers and teachers, should not be subject to NICs if they contract through PSCs rather than directly. However, both the FTT and UT found no basis for such an exemption, holding that there was no provision within the legislation that granted entertainers any special privilege regarding NIC liability. The tribunals concluded that Glenister’s company failed to justify why entertainers should be treated differently, and they upheld HMRC’s purposive interpretation of the law, reaffirming that NICs apply in these circumstances.

Albatel Ltd v HMRC (Lorraine Kelly at ITV)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2019
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned television presenter Lorraine Kelly, working for ITV through her company, Albatel Ltd, and facing a £1.2 million tax liability for the tax years 2012/13 to 2015/16. The key issues in this case revolved around MOO, personal service, control, and the nature of her business being independent of ITV.

The FTT found that while Kelly was obliged to work if requested and paid even if no work was available, the level of control ITV had over her was minimal. She had significant autonomy in how she presented the shows Daybreak and Lorraine, and she was not bound by the ITV employee code of conduct. The FTT concluded that Kelly had full control over her performance, making decisions about how to present the content. Furthermore, the personal service aspect was significant – if Kelly was unavailable, the show would not go ahead, underscoring her integral role in the programs.

A crucial factor was that Kelly was deemed to be in business on her own account (IBOOA), working with other clients, and the parties’ intention was always self-employment. The lack of control exercised by ITV, along with her autonomy and the broader scope of her work, led to the conclusion that Kelly’s contracts fell outside IR35.

Jensal Software Ltd v HMRC (Ian Wells at Department for Work & Pensions)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2018
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Ian Wells, a business analyst working for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) through his company, Jensal Software Ltd, for the period of May 2012 to April 2013, with a tax liability of £26k. Wells, an experienced contractor well-versed in IR35, had previously been investigated in 2003 and won that case also. The most significant factor in this case was the level of control the DWP had over Wells’ work.

Wells had the freedom to work at any site he deemed necessary and received minimal instructions or check-ups on his work from the DWP. Although the contract included a supervision, direction, or control (SDC) clause, which HMRC used as part of their argument, the judge deemed this clause generic and unhelpful in establishing a hypothetical contract of employment. The tribunal found that Wells’ autonomy in how he completed his tasks, alongside the lack of control from the DWP, was crucial in determining that the engagement fell outside of IR35.

MDCM Ltd v HMRC (Mr Daniels at Structure Tone Ltd)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2018
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Mr. Daniels, who worked through his company, MDCM Ltd, providing construction management services for Structure Tone Ltd (STL), from April 2012 to April 2014. Mr. Daniels represented himself during the case.

The FTT found that Daniels was not subject to significant control by STL beyond what was typical for other contractors. He could refuse to work on other sites, and despite a clause in a separate contract indicating the possibility of substitution, the reality was that Daniels had to provide personal services, and no substitute was allowed. He was paid a flat daily rate, covering his own expenses, but bore no additional financial risk.

While HMRC argued that the need for personal service and the absence of financial risk suggested an employment relationship, the FTT disagreed. It noted that Daniels was not integrated into STL’s business, was not entitled to employee benefits, and did not have a notice period or severance pay. On balance, the FTT concluded that the nature of the payment arrangement and lack of employee-like treatment meant that the hypothetical contract did not fall within IR35.

Armitage Technical Design Services Ltd v HMRC (David Armitage at Diamond Light Source Ltd)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2017
Winner: Contractor
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned David Armitage, working as an electrical control and instrumentation designer through his company, Armitage Technical Design Services Ltd, for Diamond Light Source Ltd during the tax years 2009/10, 2010/11, 2012/13, and 2013/14, with a £68k tax liability plus £13k in penalties. Armitage initially made an offer to settle for the first two years without penalties, but HMRC pursued the case to impose penalties for what they argued was careless behaviour. Despite winning the case, Armitage declined to have the findings published, and the result only came to light 18 months later.

Key findings of the case revolved around several mixed factors. Armitage had a contractual right of substitution, though it required client approval. HMRC’s view on MOO was found to be overly simplistic, with the tribunal determining that MOO was neutral in this case. Armitage was able to choose his work location, and while his work was subject to approval and progress checks, he had no direct supervision and infrequent contact with the client. He worked fixed hours but was not subject to the same time controls as employees. Furthermore, he had additional clients and business streams, indicating he was in business on his own account (IBOOA). He was not integrated into the client’s business, having no participation in functions or training.

The judge rejected HMRC’s rigid interpretation of the key status factors, clarifying that a restricted right of substitution was not a decisive factor, MOO could not simply be reduced to an offer and acceptance of work, and control was not established by merely suggesting that some oversight existed. Overall, the FTT concluded that Armitage was outside IR35.

JLJ Services Ltd v HMRC (John Spencer at Allianz Cornhill Management Services Ltd)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2011
Winner: Split case
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned John Spencer, an IT specialist working through his company JLJ Services Ltd, for Allianz Cornhill Management Services Ltd from 2000 to 2007. It is notable as a split-status case, where Spencer was initially found to be outside IR35, but his status shifted over time to inside IR35 in the last four years of his engagement. Spencer’s work, which began as short-term contracts for specific projects, gradually morphed into annual renewals with no defined projects, leading to a more employee-like relationship over time.

The FTT found that, for the first three years, IR35 did not apply. However, as Spencer’s role evolved, he became increasingly integrated into Allianz Cornhill’s business, taking on a broader range of tasks without specific project requirements. During this period, his contracts were extended annually, and the client could direct him to work on any tasks needed, making him akin to a “tail-end charlie.” Although the contract had a substitution clause, the FTT noted that any substitute would need to be independently interviewed and hired by Allianz, meaning the clause lacked genuine operational significance.

By the end of 2003, Spencer no longer worked on identified projects, and the control the client exerted over him increased. He failed the ‘in-business’ test, as he had no opportunity to profit beyond being paid for hours worked. The FTT also dismissed MOO as largely irrelevant and downplayed the significance of the parties’ intentions regarding Spencer’s employment status. Ultimately, HMRC’s claim that IR35 applied to the entire period was rejected for the first three years but upheld for the last four, resulting in a ruling that Spencer was inside IR35 for those later years.

Primary Path Ltd v HMRC (Philip Winfield at GlaxoSmithKline Plc)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2011
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Philip Winfield, working through Primary Path Ltd for GlaxoSmithKline Plc via various recruitment agencies. Winfield provided Oracle software development on a specific project and was part of a mixed team of permanent employees and contractors. A key focus in the case was the contract’s substitution clause, which some argued could act as a new “silver bullet” in proving outside IR35 status.

In this case, the substitution clause was well-documented and present in both the upper-level contracts (between the client and agencies) and the lower-level contracts (between Primary Path Ltd and the agencies). There was strong evidence that Winfield was in business on his own account, carrying financial risk such as irregular payments and fluctuating rates based on market conditions, which indicated he was not a disguised employee. His pay, determined on an hourly and daily basis, reflected a professional services provider.

Additionally, Winfield’s skills were so specialised that GlaxoSmithKline had no one with comparable expertise, meaning he could not be easily controlled. He had the flexibility to work from home, was not bound by set hours, and operated under a clear project schedule – all factors that reduced the presence of control and MOO. Ultimately, the evidence pointed towards Winfield operating as an independent contractor outside IR35 rather than a disguised employee, due to his specialised skills, the presence of the substitution clause, and the financial risks involved.

ECR Consulting Ltd v HMRC (Elaine Richardson at Vertex Data Services)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2011
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case of ECR Consulting Ltd v HMRC involved Elaine Richardson, a software developer who worked for Vertex Data Services through her company, ECR Consulting Ltd. HMRC challenged her IR35 status, leading to a five-year investigation and a potential liability of £50,000. Richardson had tax investigation insurance, which funded her legal defence, enabling her to successfully challenge the HMRC.

The FTT ruled in favor of Richardson, based on evidence that ECR Consulting Ltd was a genuine business operating on its own account. She ran the business from a dedicated office space at her home, had a company domain and website, and advertised her services. As a member of the Professional Contractors Group (PCG), Richardson further demonstrated her business’s independent status. ECR retained financial reserves, invested in business development, and undertook fixed-price work for various clients, showing a diverse client base beyond Vertex.

The FTT concluded that ECR was not a target of the IR35 legislation, stating, “it is clear to us that ECR is a genuine business.” This conclusion, along with the lack of a typical employment relationship, led to a dismissal of HMRC’s claims.

MBF Design Services Ltd v HMRC (Mark Fitzpatrick at Airbus UK)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2011
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Mark Fitzpatrick, a design engineer working through his company, MBF Design Services Ltd, for Airbus UK via agencies GED Sitec and Morson. The contractual terms in this case strongly indicated that Fitzpatrick was outside IR35. Key points included provisions that he would not be paid for poor attendance or defective work, he was required to cover his own training and insurance costs, and there was no direct control or direction from the client. Additionally, the contract allowed for a short 7-day notice period (or immediate termination in some cases), and included a substitution clause, though this was never exercised.

The working practices also supported the conclusion that Fitzpatrick was outside IR35. Apart from one training course provided by Airbus, Fitzpatrick covered his own training, chose his own hours, and was able to refuse additional work. He was engaged to work on a specific project, demonstrating his expertise as a professional, and the nature of the work required him to be on-site, as there was no other way to carry out the tasks. Witness evidence, which had been prepared by HMRC, was ultimately discredited during the proceedings.

These combined factors led to the conclusion that Fitzpatrick’s role did not fall under IR35, as both the contractual terms and working practices pointed to self-employment rather than employment.

Novasoft Ltd v HMRC (Novak Brajkovic at Zeneca)

Court(s): FTT
Year Decided: 2010
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Novak Brajkovic, an IT analyst and programmer, working through Novasoft Ltd for Zeneca (later called Avecia) Ltd via agency Lorien. The case was described as “borderline,” but the FTT ultimately found more factors in favour of Brajkovic being outside IR35 than HMRC’s claim that he was a disguised employee.

One of the key considerations was control. The FTT found that the hypothetical contract between Brajkovic and Avecia would not have been prescriptive about exact hours of attendance or how he carried out the assigned tasks. While there were mutual obligations during the contract, Brajkovic had no right or expectation of future contracts from the client and was not integrated into their organisation. Although there was no provision for substitution in the contract, the judge concluded that this omission did not disturb the overall impression of self-employment when considering the contract as a whole.

HMRC v Larkstar Data Ltd (Alan Brill at Matra Bae Dynamics UK Ltd)

Court(s): General Commissioners then High Court Chancery Division
Year Decided: 2009
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Alan Brill, a computer consultant working through his company, Larkstar Data Ltd, for Matra Bae Dynamics UK Ltd via the agency Technology Project Services International Ltd. Initially, the case was heard by the General Commissioners, where Brill won, but HMRC appealed to the High Court, which ruled in favor of HMRC. The case was remitted to a new set of Commissioners for rehearing. However, Brill decided to withdraw from the case to avoid further stress on his family, effectively conceding to HMRC’s position.

Key issues in the case included the substitution clause, which was deemed unrealistic due to security arrangements required by the client. The General Commissioners’ initial ruling that there was no MOO was found to be a misdirection by the High Court, as they only considered the obligation to offer work outside the terms of the contract. This was irrelevant to determining whether mutual obligations existed during the engagement itself. Despite HMRC’s victory, the company had only £129.79 left in its bank account when the appeal was heard, leaving HMRC with no practical means to collect the PAYE tax and NIC liability.

Alternative Book Company Ltd v HMRC (Keith Shepherd at Gerling NCM)

Court(s): The Special Commissioners
Year Decided: 2008
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Keith Shepherd, an IT consultant working through his company, Alternative Book Company Ltd, for Gerling NCM (now known as Atradius). Shepherd’s defense centered on several arguments, including the right of substitution, but the court found that the substitution clause had only been added several years after he began working for the client. Initially, the contract specified that Shepherd would personally provide the services, rather than working under a ‘contract for services’.

The court concluded that the substitution clause was effectively a sham, introduced as “window dressing” and not reflective of the actual working relationship. The client was primarily interested in Shepherd personally and would not have agreed to a substitution clause in a direct contract. Furthermore, the court found that the relationship between Shepherd and the client was overwhelmingly that of employment. The hypothetical contract, when viewed in its entirety, met the irreducible minimum necessary to constitute an employment contract, which placed Shepherd inside IR35.

Dragonfly Consultancy Ltd v HMRC (Jonathan Bessell at AA Group)

Court(s): The Special Commissioners, then High Court Chancery Division
Year Decided: 2008
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Jonathan Bessell, an IT system tester, working through his company Dragonfly Consultancy Ltd for AA Group, via an agency. The initial judgment found that the notional contracts between Bessell and the client were for personal service, with a limited possibility for substitution, though this was not a major factor.

The court found that Bessell was subject to guidance from a team and team manager, and this was sufficient to demonstrate control. The court also established that MOO was present, as there was an obligation to work in return for remuneration. Bessell worked regular hours, was integrated into the client’s teams, and contributed to project tasks as part of the client’s operations, making his role similar to that of an employee. The court concluded that Bessell would have been an employee if directly engaged by the client.

On appeal, Bessell argued that the substitution clause pointed to self-employment, but the court ruled that the clause was not decisive. The client’s requirement for personal service and the level of control exercised by the client over Bessell’s duties outweighed the substitution clause. The court also considered that supervision and quality control exceeded what would be expected for a self-employed contractor. Additionally, the court dismissed statements from the parties disavowing an intention to create an employment relationship, stating that the legal substance of the agreement took precedence. The appeal was dismissed, with the court reaffirming that the notional contract was inside IR35.

First Word Software Ltd v HMRC (Neill Atkins at Reuters)

Court(s): The Special Commissioners
Year Decided: 2007
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Neill Atkins, a computer consultant working through his company, First Word Software Ltd, for Reuters via the agency Plexus Personnel. The court’s decision was influenced by several key factors that pointed toward outside rather than inside IR35. A genuine right of substitution existed in Atkins’ contract, allowing him to provide another person to perform the work if necessary. Additionally, he was engaged specifically for his expertise and to fulfil a particular project, with control over how the work was done left to him.

Atkins was not subject to the same degree of control as an employee, as he had the freedom to work for other clients concurrently with his work for Reuters. Furthermore, the court found that there was no MOO beyond the current contract period, with no obligation on Reuters to provide additional work or on Atkins to accept it. The arrangement was not permanent, and Atkins brought his own expertise and intellectual property to the project, retaining ownership of the processes he developed.

These factors, especially the lack of MOO, control, and the genuine right of substitution, led the court to conclude that Atkins acted as a sub-contractor rather than an employee, meaning he fell outside of IR35.

MKM Computing Ltd v HMRC (Martin Ellwood at London General Holdings)

Court(s): The Special Commissioners
Year Decided: 2007
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Martin Ellwood, an analyst programmer working through his company MKM Computing Ltd for London General Holdings via agency Proactive Appointments between 1998 and 2002. Over time, Ellwood became increasingly integrated into his client’s company, being treated as “part and parcel” of the business. Both the upper contract with the agency and the contract with the client required personal service and granted the client rights of supervision, direction, and control over Ellwood’s work.

Ellwood worked as part of a team that included employees, had his tasks allocated to him, and his work monitored. He worked 37.5 hours per week regardless of progress, and there was MOO, as he was paid even when there was no work available. Additionally, the contract included a pay in lieu of notice clause, further indicating an employee-like relationship. These factors led to the conclusion that Ellwood had transitioned from being a contractor to being effectively treated as an employee, falling within the scope of IR35.

Datagate Services Ltd v HMRC (Bret Barnett at MBDA)

Court(s): The Special Commissioners
Year Decided: 2007
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Bret Barnett, an IT consultant working through his company Datagate Services Ltd for MBDA, via an agency. The court found Barnett to be outside IR35. Key factors in this decision included the absence of any ultimate right of control by MBDA, no requirement for personal service, and Barnett being paid on a fee basis rather than a salary. Additionally, there was no exclusivity clause, meaning Barnett was free to work for other clients simultaneously.

Barnett was considered to be in business on his own account, and not integrated into MBDA’s workforce like an employee. Furthermore, both parties intended that the arrangement should not constitute employment. The court emphasised this by stating, “Standing back and looking at the picture as a whole, I find it a primary fact that Bret Barnett was in business on his own account.”

The court also noted that the evidence provided by an HR representative did not adequately reflect Barnett’s individual working circumstances, serving as a reminder that HR representatives may not always be best placed to give evidence on specific working practices in cases like these. This helped to reinforce the conclusion that Barnett operated as an independent contractor, falling outside IR35.

Island Consultants Ltd v HMRC (Ian Hough at Severn Trent Water)

Court(s): The Special Commissioners
Year Decided: 2007
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Ian Hough, an IT consultant working through his company, Island Consultants Ltd, for Severn Trent Water via the agency Spring. Hough was brought in for his specialised skills, which were unavailable in-house. The court found that there was sufficient mutual obligation, given the long-running project and the expectation of contract renewal, and that Severn Trent Water was obligated to provide work and payment.

Hough had no other clients and minimal financial risk, and the court noted that he had virtually no overheads. Control over his work was limited as to where it was carried out, but not how it was done. There was no realistic right of substitution, and the contract included a four-week termination notice. Hough had integrated into the company, having his own desk, PC, parking spot, and canteen access, further indicating that he had become “part and parcel” of the business.

Some experts later argued that the judge had made errors, claiming that major issues were not sufficiently considered during the proceedings. The case emphasised the importance of gathering the end client’s views prior to any appeal hearing to ensure all aspects of the working relationship are properly addressed.

Netherlane Ltd v York (Martin Renshaw at NPI/AMP)

Court(s): The Special Commissioners
Year Decided: 2005
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Martin Renshaw, an IT Project Manager working through his company Netherlane Ltd for NPI Limited (later known as AMP) via an agency. Various factors led the court to conclude that Renshaw was inside IR35. These included his management responsibility for a team of workers, regular reporting to a manager, performing continuous support and maintenance work rather than a specific assignment or project, and being paid a daily rate without the ability to earn more for working longer hours. Additionally, he did not have any other clients, and his contract was terminable with a four-week notice period.

The court faced challenges due to a lack of real evidence, particularly about the exact nature of Renshaw’s working relationship with NPI. The absence of evidence from the client made it difficult to form a complete picture of the arrangement. This issue has been noted as a recurring problem in IR35 cases, where establishing the terms of a hypothetical contract often requires oral evidence from both parties.

Future On-line Ltd v HMIT (Shane Roberts at EDS)

Court(s): The Special Commissioners, then High Court Chancery Division
Year Decided: 2004
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Shane Roberts, and IT specialist providing services to EDS through his company Future Online Ltd. The engagement was carried on through an agency, Elan. HMIT had determined that Roberts was a disguised employee of EDS for tax purposes, a ruling he appealed. The case ultimately reached the High Court after an initial hearing with the Special Commissioners.

Roberts argued that Elan, not EDS, was his client and that the right of control was irrelevant since it was never exercised. However, the court disagreed, upholding the earlier decision that Roberts was subject to control, even if not overtly exercised, a “right” being key under IR35. Additionally, the court agreed with the Special Commissioner’s finding that Roberts was an integral part of EDS, rather than merely working on a temporary project. His integration into the company was a significant factor, consistent with the principles outlined in Hall v Lorimer, which emphasise that being “part and parcel” of a client’s business is a key indicator of employment status. Consequently, the court found that Roberts was inside IR35, rejecting his appeal and confirming HIMT’s position.

Ansell Computer Services Ltd v HMIT (Michael Ansell at Marconi and BAE)

Court(s): The Special Commissioners
Year Decided: 2004
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Michael Ansell, a software engineer in the defence sector working through his company Ansell Computer Services Ltd, with clients Marconi and BAE. Several factors led to the court’s conclusion that Ansell was outside IR35.

Key aspects included that BAE was not obliged to provide work, and Ansell was not required to work a minimum number of hours. He could take time off without asking permission, highlighting his autonomy. Additionally, his contract allowed him to offer a substitute, though he never exercised this option. Despite not being a typical entrepreneur, Ansell was found to meet the test of “acting as a person in business on his own account.”

This case was significant because it demonstrated the differences between freelancers and permanent employees, even in instances where the contractor did not exhibit many factors traditionally associated with running a business. The decision acknowledged that a contractor could be outside IR35 despite minimal indicators of being in business independently.

Usetech Ltd v HMIT (William Hood at ABB Vetco Grey)

Court(s): The Special Commissioners, then High Court Chancery Division
Year Decided: 2004
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned William Hood, a software specialist working through his company Usetech Ltd for ABB Vetco Grey via an agency, NES. HMIT ruled that Hood’s contract fell within the scope of IR35, landing him with a tax and National Insurance bill. Disagreeing with this decision, Hood appealed, but the Special Commissioners dismissed his case.

Hood then took his appeal to the High Court, arguing that his contract included a right of substitution and that there was no MOO. However, the court found that the contract, which was a standard agency contract from NES, did not reflect the upper-level terms of his actual working relationship. Hood was contracted to work a minimum of 37.5 hours per week, with a seven-day notice period, which the court stated indicated the presence of MOO.

The court’s decision highlighted the importance of considering the working practices, not just agency agreements, in determining IR35 status. Hood’s appeal was ultimately dismissed, reinforcing HMIT’s position that the contract pointed towards an employment relationship for tax purposes.

Tilbury Consulting Ltd v HMIT (Roger Tilbury at Compuware / Ford)

Court(s): The Special Commissioners
Year Decided: 2003
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Tilbury Consulting Ltd, which provided the services of its principal director, Roger Tilbury, to Compuware, who in turn supplied these services to Ford. HMRC determined that the arrangement was caught by IR35, prompting Tilbury to appeal the ruling.

The Special Commissioner reviewed the evidence thoroughly and ultimately allowed the appeal. The commissioner concluded that Compuware, not Ford, had engaged Tilbury as the principal. Compuware was responsible for fulfilling its obligations to Ford, either by employing personnel directly or through subcontractors such as Tilbury. Importantly, Ford did not exercise control over how Tilbury’s work was performed. Instead, any control over Tilbury’s services lay with Compuware.

Additionally, Ford accepted substitutes from both Compuware and Tilbury, reinforcing the notion that Tilbury was not integrated into Ford’s business. As a result, the court found that at no time was Tilbury considered part of Ford’s organisation, and the arrangement fell outside of IR35.

Synaptek Ltd v HMIT (Gordon Stutchbury at EDS)

Court(s): The General Commissioners, then High Court Chancery Division
Year Decided: 2003
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Gordon Stutchbury, a software engineer working through his company Synaptek Ltd for EDS. The court found several factors that indicated Stutchbury’s relationship with EDS fell inside IR35. Key aspects included a minimum of 37.5 hours per week, alongside the fact that Stutchbury faced no financial risk, other than the risk of insolvency.

His contract was for a fixed six-month period but was not linked to any specific project, which reinforced the idea that his engagement was not project-based but more akin to employment. Stutchbury also worked alongside EDS employees and was expected to comply with all instructions. The presence of a no work, no pay clause was deemed insufficient to establish a lack of MOO, further supporting the court’s conclusion that Stutchbury’s contract was inside IR35.

Lime IT Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Lisa Fearnley at Marconi)

Court(s): The Special Commissioners
Year Decided: 2002
Winner: Contractor
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Lisa Fearnley, an IT consultant working through her company Lime IT Ltd for Marconi. The court found several factors that pointed against the contract being considered inside IR35. These factors included the nature of the work, which was project-based, with estimated end-dates and working hours that varied based on project needs rather than a regular schedule. Additionally, Lime IT was not required to work outside the project’s scope, and although not obligated to, Lime purchased a laptop specifically for the job.

Other factors supporting the outside IR35 status included payment terms where invoices were paid 30 days later, and Lime experienced payment delays demonstrating a financial risk. Lime also had the right to substitute an alternative supplier, though this was not exercised. Fearnley did not work alongside Marconi employees and Lime IT operated like a small business with its own office, serving four other clients at the same time.

In essence, Marconi engaged Lime IT for a specific IT job, much in the way one would expect to hire an external IT consultant. These factors led the court to conclude that the arrangement was more indicative of self-employment, placing the contract outside IR35.

FS Consulting Ltd v HMRC (Frank Simpson at Better Investments Plc)

Court(s): The Special Commissioners
Year Decided: 2002
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The case concerned Frank Simpson, a computer consultant and sole director of FS Consulting Ltd, who provided his services to Better Investments Plc via an agency, Topper. HMIT contended that the arrangements fell within the scope of IR35.

Simpson’s defence argued that Topper should not be considered an intermediary under the regulations. He also contended that, had there been a direct contract between him and Better Investments, he would not have been regarded as an employee, as Better paid remuneration to Topper, not him directly. Additionally, Simpson claimed that under the Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations 1978 (SI 1978/1689), he should not be classified as an employed earner since he was not subject to supervision, direction, or control in his work.

The court rejected Simpson’s arguments, concluding that the arrangements between FS Consulting Ltd, Topper, and Better fell within the 2000 Regulations. Furthermore, it determined that if Simpson had been directly engaged by Better Investments, he would have been considered employed. The court also ruled that it was inappropriate to entertain Simpson’s argument regarding the 1978 Regulations, as those regulations and Topper were not part of the appeal. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and Simpson’s contract was deemed to fall inside IR35.

Battersby v HMIT (Eddie Battersby at Pennyright Bank)

Court(s): The Special Commissioners
Year Decided: 2001
Winner: HMRC
Link to Judgment
Background & Key Deciding Factors: The first IR35 case brought before courts. The case concerned Eddie Battersby, an IT contractor who worked for Pennyright Bank for seven years. The court examined whether his contract fell under IR35, and it concluded that, had Battersby been directly employed by Pennyright Bank, he would have been classified as working under a contract of service.

Battersby worked a set number of hours, with any absence needing approval, and was managed by a personal manager from the bank, despite being a skilled worker who did not require detailed instructions. The bank maintained control over his work quality, and he did not hire his own employees – his team consisted of other contractors or permanent employees of Pennyright Bank. He also used the bank’s tools and equipment, including their mainframe computer, and was paid by the hour rather than by the volume of work completed.

Furthermore, Battersby faced no financial risk and had no opportunity for profit, with his relationship with the bank having a degree of permanency, particularly since he accepted a permanent position in 2001. Throughout the engagement, he worked exclusively for Pennyright Bank, closely collaborating with its employees, further supporting the court’s conclusion that Battersby was integrated into the company’s structure. Consequently, the court determined that Battersby’s arrangement was consistent with employment and inside IR35.

Have any questions?

Get in touch today for an initial discussion regarding how we can help you.