We think that some do impose such conditions and we do not think it is lawful – it’s not a prohibition against using a named individual or entity, which IS allowed for, and it’s ignoring the fact that not even the Revenue takes the position that one cannot BE a self employed PA.
What matters is that the contract treating them as such is one that passes proper scrutiny as to the legitimacy of that label – so attention will be bound to be paid to the clause providing for substitution of another worker at the self employed contractor’s behest and whether it ever actually happens. Contracts can be asserted to be shams, and this will be likely if the worker doesn’t have any other clients. But having MORE than one client is not INconsistent with having a series of part time employee roles with different employers….
