Issue Explanations (if required) YES/NOCan <strong>you</strong>r company terminatethe contract on giving notice ofa reasonable period?Are any clauses requiring <strong>you</strong> or<strong>you</strong>r company <strong>to</strong> act in the bestinterest of the clientreasonable?Are Professional Standards andperformance requirementsreasonable?Are Liability and Limitationrequirements reasonable?Are Confidentialityrequirements reasonable?Is Copyright & IntellectualProperty prov<strong>is</strong>ion adequate?Are suitable prov<strong>is</strong>ions madefor variations <strong>to</strong> contract?Is there a suitable GoverningLaw e.g. Engl<strong>is</strong>h Law, stated inthe contract?Are all other commercial termsreasonable?Your company should be able <strong>to</strong> terminate the contract with anotice period not exceeding one month.If any clauses are present that require <strong>you</strong>r company or <strong>you</strong>personally <strong>to</strong> act in the best interest of the client, they shouldnot be reasonable.Any such prov<strong>is</strong>ions should not be unreasonable.Where there <strong>is</strong> a liability prov<strong>is</strong>ion, it shall be reasonable; andwhere an amount of required or adv<strong>is</strong>ed insurance cover <strong>is</strong>specified, <strong>to</strong>tal liability shall be limited <strong>to</strong> that amount.Such prov<strong>is</strong>ions should not be unreasonable and should excludeinformation already known <strong>to</strong> <strong>you</strong> (independent of anyd<strong>is</strong>closure by the client), and should exclude information in thepublic domain.Contract should make clear that ownership of any of <strong>you</strong>r/<strong>you</strong>rcompany’s own IPR which <strong>you</strong> may intend <strong>to</strong> use with theClient’s agreement in the course of the contract should retainedby <strong>you</strong>/<strong>you</strong>r companyContract should expressly say that any change should be inwriting and signed by both parties.Contract should make clear what law <strong>is</strong> intended <strong>to</strong> apply <strong>to</strong> it.<strong>Th<strong>is</strong></strong> could include anything that seems either out of place in acontract of th<strong>is</strong> type, and/or which <strong>is</strong> commercially unbalanced<strong>to</strong> a point where it significantly changes the obligations or r<strong>is</strong>ks,or that <strong>you</strong> do not understand, or of which <strong>you</strong> do notunderstand the implications
Now please read through the following section and answer accordingly.The extent <strong>to</strong> which the contract sat<strong>is</strong>fies the generally accepted tests for IR35friendliness should be considered, with particular reference <strong>to</strong> the aspects set out in thequestions below.Whilst naturally desirable, it <strong>is</strong> not always necessary for there <strong>to</strong> be a ‘yes’ on eachindividual question, provided the overall position indicates at least a ‘probable yes’.For example, it <strong>is</strong> unders<strong>to</strong>od that there are many scenarios where substitution <strong>is</strong>unreal<strong>is</strong>tic. A ‘no’ on that <strong>is</strong>sue alone would not necessarily result in the contract beingconsidered <strong>to</strong> fail, provided the other aspects relevant <strong>to</strong> IR35 were sufficiently strong,and showed a clear intent for a ‘non-employment’ type of relationship between theindividual contrac<strong>to</strong>r and the client.Issue Requirements Yes/NoIs the contractclearly “forservices” ratherthan “of service”?Is a prov<strong>is</strong>ion forsubstitutionclearly defined?Is there Mutualityof Obligationbetween <strong>you</strong> andthe Client?The services <strong>you</strong> are <strong>to</strong> provide should be specified as such, and not by reference <strong>to</strong>a role or position titleYou should have a substantially unfettered right <strong>to</strong> substitute – ie without priorapproval, subject only <strong>to</strong> a right of the client <strong>to</strong> object <strong>to</strong> any individual onreasonable and objectively defined grounds, and on the bas<strong>is</strong> that <strong>you</strong> remainresponsible for sourcing and paying the substitute, and for the overall quality ofwork.Basic: There should be no obligation on <strong>you</strong> as an individual <strong>to</strong> provide servicespersonally, and no unqualified reciprocal obligation <strong>to</strong> pay for services actuallyprovided 2 .Extended: The bas<strong>is</strong> for payment shall be for services actually provided, withoutany obligation on the part of the agency <strong>to</strong> provide work or pay in lieu, and withoutany obligation on <strong>you</strong>r part <strong>to</strong> accept and undertake such work as may be offered.In particular, the contract should not entitle <strong>you</strong> <strong>to</strong> payment in lieu of notice. 3Are there nounreasonableControl elementsenshrined in thecontract?The particular interest here <strong>is</strong> control of a particular type – whether <strong>you</strong> agree ‘thatin the performance of the service <strong>you</strong> will be subject <strong>to</strong> the other’s control in asufficient degree <strong>to</strong> make that other master.’ The degree of control should becapable of being d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>hed from an employee undertaking similar tasks.Your position should be that of an independent professional, accepting responsibilityfor the services <strong>you</strong> provide, and not subject <strong>to</strong> the direction and control of theClient, save where a necessary consequence of the services themselves1 IR35 status <strong>is</strong> defined not just by contractual terms, but also working relationships. It <strong>is</strong> adv<strong>is</strong>able <strong>to</strong> confirmworking relationships in a Real Arrangement Letter – see <strong>PCG</strong> Guide <strong>to</strong> IR352 In the absence of mutuality at th<strong>is</strong> Basic level, the authorities suggest that the hypothetical relationshipimposed by the leg<strong>is</strong>lation cannot be one of ‘employment’.3 Absence of mutuality at th<strong>is</strong> extended level would generally be regarded as a pointer away from thehypothetical relationship imposed by the leg<strong>is</strong>lation being one of ‘employment’. Where there <strong>is</strong> a degree ofmutuality at both levels, it would generally be regarded as a pointer <strong>to</strong>wards the hypothetical relationshipbeing one of ‘employment’