An independent security assessment conducted by U.S.-based cybersecurity firm OnDefend found that there are no security-related reasons for blocking DJI's products from being imported and sold in the United States.
The decision, handed down at the First-tier Tribunal, means HMRC will be denied £584,000 in employment taxes it had argued were owed. The department retains the right to appeal, but the verdict has already been seized upon by tax specialists as a potentially seismic moment for the millions of contractors, freelancers and businesses operating in the UK’s flexible labour market.
Specialist contractor insurance provider Qdos described the outcome as one of the most significant employment status rulings in history, warning that it lays bare a “fundamental flaw” in HMRC’s own Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool, the digital instrument introduced in 2017 and used millions of times to determine whether a worker should be taxed as employed or self-employed.
The case turned on two principles long regarded as the bedrock of employment case law: mutuality of obligation (MOO), whether a worker is obliged to accept work and the engager obliged to provide it, and control, namely the extent to which a business directs how services are performed. The tribunal ruled that referees were neither mutually obliged to work for PGMOL nor sufficiently controlled in how they performed their duties to be classed as employees.
Seb Maley, chief executive of Qdos, said the ruling directly undermines HMRC’s interpretation of the very rules it polices.
“This landmark verdict directly challenges HMRC’s very understanding of employment status, exposing a fundamental flaw in the tax office’s employment status tool, which is in desperate need of an overhaul,” he said.
“For years, HMRC has insisted that mutuality of obligation exists in every contract, so much so that its CEST tool barely scratches the surface on it. The latest twist in this case highlights the need for a rigorous review of CEST, which has been used millions of times to set the employment status of individuals, in turn determining whether they pay tax as a self-employed worker or employee.”
Maley added that the result should reassure firms that engage contractors. “Make no mistake, this result is good news for businesses that engage contractors and self-employed workers, ultimately because it proves that factors like mutuality of obligation and control really aren’t as narrow as HMRC has been contending.”
He also took aim at the sheer length of the proceedings. “With the first hearing in 2018, we’re nearly a decade into this case, the result of which could yet be appealed. If that doesn’t highlight the desperate need for the simplification of employment status, I don’t know what does.”
The dispute stretches back to PGMOL’s engagement of referees as self-employed contractors during the 2014/15 and 2015/16 tax years. HMRC opened the first front in 2018, arguing at the First-tier Tribunal that the officials should have been treated as employees because they were mutually obliged to work for PGMOL.
The FTT disagreed, finding insufficient mutuality of obligation. HMRC appealed and lost again at the Upper Tribunal in 2020, which upheld the original ruling that the minimum test for employment had not been met.
A further HMRC appeal took the case to the Court of Appeal in 2022, which reversed the earlier decisions and concluded that mutuality of obligation did exist on each match day, sending the dispute back to the FTT for reconsideration.
PGMOL escalated matters to the Supreme Court in 2024, where its appeal was dismissed, again sending the case back to the FTT. It is at this latest hearing that PGMOL’s position has now finally been vindicated, with the judge ruling that the referees were neither mutually obliged to work nor sufficiently controlled by PGMOL to be employees.
For Britain’s SME community, which leans heavily on freelance and contract labour, the decision is more than a footnote in a niche sporting dispute. It strikes at the heart of how HMRC interprets and enforces the very employment status rules it designed, and adds further pressure on Whitehall to deliver the long-promised simplification of a system that has tied businesses, workers and the courts in knots for years.
Read more:
HMRC loses landmark £584,000 tax battle as referees ruled self-employed
For several summers, I have taught drone photography in Iceland’s highlands under permits issued by the country’s nature conservation agency. I applied on time, followed every condition, and never received a complaint from a ranger, another visitor, or the agency itself.
Meta has filed for a judicial review of Ofcom’s methodology for setting fees and penalties under the Online Safety Act, arguing that pegging charges to a company’s qualifying worldwide revenue (QWR) is disproportionate and out of step with the geographic scope of the regulator’s remit. A hearing has been scheduled for 13 and 14 October.
The stakes are considerable. Under the Act, Ofcom can levy fines of up to 10 per cent of QWR or £18m, whichever is higher. Given that Meta reported global revenues of roughly $201bn last year, the regulator could in theory issue a penalty of around $20bn, a sum that would dwarf the largest fines in UK corporate history. The fee regime introduced last September applies the same QWR principle to annual tariffs, capturing companies whose user-generated content, search or adult-content services in the UK generate more than £250m a year.
Meta contends that liability should be determined by activity within the jurisdiction doing the regulating. “We and others in the tech industry believe its decisions on the methodology to calculate fees and potential fines are disproportionate,” a company spokesperson said. “We believe fees and penalties should be based on the services being regulated in the countries they’re being regulated in. This would still allow Ofcom to impose the largest fines in UK corporate history.”
Court documents filed on Meta’s behalf by Monica Carss-Frisk KC describe Ofcom’s approach as “troubling”, warning that it would result in a handful of large platforms shouldering the bulk of the regulator’s costs even though the Act covers a much broader sweep of internet services. The barrister noted that QWR is not pegged to revenue generated by any particular service in the UK; rather, once a service is offered to British users, the entirety of its global turnover is counted.
Ofcom, for its part, is preparing to dig in. The regulator said its fees and fines framework reflected “a plain reading of the law” and pledged to “robustly defend our reasoning and decisions”.
Meta is not alone in pushing back. The US online forum 4chan has refused to pay penalties imposed under the Act, and Ofcom is facing separate litigation from the operators of both 4chan and Kiwi Farms. The regime has also drawn criticism from Donald Trump’s White House, which has signalled growing impatience with European digital rules that it sees as targeting American firms.
The financial significance of the new system for Ofcom itself is hard to overstate. Once the preserve of broadcasters and telecoms operators paying for spectrum and licence fees, the regulator now expects the bulk of its £233m budget for the year to come from online safety tariffs, which are forecast to bring in £164m. That marks one of the most substantial shifts in Ofcom’s funding base in its two-decade history.
For SME founders watching from the sidelines, the case is more than a transatlantic skirmish between Big Tech and a British quango. The threshold of £250m in qualifying turnover means most smaller platforms sit outside the fee net, but the principles being tested in October, how revenue is attributed across borders, and how proportionality is measured for global digital businesses, will shape the regulatory environment for any UK-based scale-up that one day finds itself trading internationally on the back of user-generated content. The judgment, when it comes, will be read closely well beyond Menlo Park.
Read more:
Meta launches high court challenge against Ofcom over online safety act fines
Sabrina Carpenter is dealing with a scary situation.
The “Espresso” singer was granted a temporary restraining order on June 1 against a man she alleged has been stalking her and attempted to get...
On June 9, Chief Judge for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Mary H. Murguia issued an Order in the case of Jeffery B. Sedlik v. Katherine von Drachenberg, aka Kat Von D, et. al. granting an en banc rehearing by the full court.
The New York Danziger Gallery displayed for sale an AI-generated version of Ansel Adams' photo "Moonrise Over Hernandez" without consulting the photographer's trust, effectively stealing the legendary artist's work and dramatically altering it with AI for the sake of profit.
Login