Alan Parry

Has a substitute ever actually worked in your place on this engagement?

No substitution has happened on this engagement

No substitution occurred. The Appellant was required to "use its best endeavours to use Alan Parry to provide the Services", and the judgment records no instance of a substitute being supplied.

If you needed to send a substitute, could the client reject them?

Yes — the client could reject a substitute, or has an approval veto

A right to provide the Services through another employee or a sub-contractor existed under clauses 2.1 to 2.4, but it was subject to BSkyB's prior written consent and to the substitute signing a non-disclosure agreement. BSkyB also had first call on Mr Parry or any substitute proposed. A right exercisable only with the client's consent is encoded as one the client could refuse.

Can the client move you to different tasks or work areas on this engagement?

No — a new agreement with me would be required

Inferred. The Services were defined in Schedule 1, so requiring materially different work would have needed a new agreement. The judgment makes no express finding on this point.

Who decides how you do your work — the methods and approach you use?

I agree how to do it with others (client team, colleagues)

Inferred as collaborative. Commentary involves professional judgement on air, but BSkyB set the production format, gave informal updates, and was about to oversee training for commentators on the video assistant referee system.

Who controls when you work — the days and hours?

The client decides my schedule

Clause 1: in return for the Fee, BSkyB "was from time to time entitled to require" the Appellant to provide the Services, and the Assignment ran "on an ad hoc as and when required basis". BSkyB decided which fixtures and when.

Who decides where you carry out the work?

I cannot choose — I must work at the client's location

Inferred. Live match commentary happens at the ground or studio BSkyB is covering, so location follows from the fixture rather than from the worker.

Did you purchase and supply significant raw materials for this work?

No

Did you provide significant specialist equipment of your own for this work?

No

Did you use your own vehicle as a primary work tool on this engagement?

No

Did you incur significant other work-related expenses at your own risk?

No

Clause 4 required BSkyB to reimburse the Appellant for expenses reasonably incurred, provided they were agreed in writing in advance. The worker therefore did not carry unreimbursed costs.

Are significant work expenses simply not applicable to this type of role?

Yes — expenses are not relevant for this kind of work

Set true because BSkyB reimbursed agreed expenses, so nothing had to be funded before payment. This answer was corrected after the first run, and the reason matters: with all five cost flags false the financial-risk section returned UNMATCHED, meaning no row in CEST's own table fitted. CEST asks this as a single choice, so "no costs at all" is expressed as this flag rather than as five falses. The correction fixed an input CEST could never produce, not an unwelcome output.

How are you mainly paid for this work?

Fixed price for the project or deliverable

Schedule 1 defined the Fee as a specified fixed amount for each year, payable monthly in arrear against invoice. The tribunal also recorded that commentator fees were calculated on the number of matches BSkyB expected to cover and "paid in monthly instalments regardless of how many matches the relevant personal services company actually covered".

If you delivered substandard work, what would happen?

The work cannot be corrected once done

Inferred. A live broadcast cannot be re-performed. The judgment makes no finding on rectification at the worker's own cost.

Do you receive employee-type benefits from the client?

No

Inferred. Engagement was through a personal service company and the judgment records no holiday, sick pay or pension provision by BSkyB.

Do you manage any of the client's employees — acting as their line manager?

No

Do you have direct contact with the client's customers or end clients?

Yes

He commentated on BSkyB broadcasts, so contact with the end client's audience is inherent in the role.

When you interact with customers, how do you present yourself?

As an employee or representative of the client's business

Clause 8 gave BSkyB first call and barred Personnel from providing the same or similar services to any other television, radio or media organisation during the Assignment without prior written consent. The tribunal found BSkyB could restrict other engagements at its discretion, and that a commentator had to obtain consent before accepting other work.

Is the client obliged to offer you work, and are you obliged to accept it, throughout this engagement?

No — either party can stop without obligationCEST does not assess this

Encoded false, and the tension is worth naming. BSkyB was "entitled to require" the Services rather than obliged to offer them, which is a right and not an obligation. The fee was nevertheless payable regardless of how many matches were actually covered, which the tribunal treated as supporting mutuality. This field captures only the obligation to offer.

When this contract ends, would you be surprised if the client did not offer you more work or extend?

Yes — I expect it to continue and would be surprised if it didn'tCEST does not assess this

Four successive contracts ran from 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2019.

Are you working for multiple clients simultaneously, or have you actively marketed your services to others in the past 12 months?

No — this client is my only engagementCEST does not assess this

Clause 8 prevented Personnel being involved directly or indirectly in providing the same or similar services to any other television, radio or media organisation during the Assignment without prior written consent. The tribunal found BSkyB could restrict the commentator's other engagements at its discretion.

Do you hold professional indemnity or public liability insurance in your own name or through your company?

NoCEST does not assess this

Not established by the judgment. Encoded false rather than assumed. This field is Verdict-only and does not affect the CEST result.