Jason Lutz v Ryanair: Pilot’s personal service company was a sham

Having three decorative titles, plus a PSC that’s not strictly a PSC, doesn’t count as self-employment – court rulings. 

A limited company to work through that wasn’t strictly a personal service company (PSC) typifies the artificiality of Ryanair pilot Jason Lutz’s ‘self-employed’ arrangement with the airline.  

Kingsbridge is issuing this PSC-related verdict at the likely conclusion of the case, Jason Lutz v Ryanair DAC & Storm Global Ltd, which was at the Court of Appeal (CoA) on April 1st-2nd 2025.  

But the IR35 insurer’s verdict concerning PSCs is now being indirectly echoed by legal experts – since the CoA became the third court in a row to reject Ryanair’s claim that Lutz was self-employed, on July 8th 2025. 

‘Two “inside IR35” pilots were ultimately bona fide self-employed, unlike Lutz of Ryanair’ 

Kingsbridge says the arrangements of Lutz, who joined Ryanair in July 2018 after answering a job advert, contrast with those of two pilots that its IR35 team represented in 2019/20. 

Assessed as ‘inside IR35’ by HMRC, the “key difference between them – and Lutz, whose case wasn’t an IR35 one – was the stack of evidence showing the two pilots as bona fide self-employed”. 

Ryan Dawson, a colleague of Kingsbridge’s Head of Tax Andy Vessey, who successfully defended the two pilots (separately) in the 2019/20 IR35 cases, added: 

“The sheer volume of evidence that we had, clearly demonstrating the two pilots, and their businesses, as genuinely self-employed, is at odds with what was found in court about Lutz.”  

‘Lutz was a fully integrated part of Ryanair’s pilot workforce’ 

In addition to the fact that he applied for employment with Ryanair, Lutz worked for the airline until January 2020 as a ‘fully integrated part of its pilot workforce’, says Brabners. 

Referring to ‘Lutz’ at the Employment Tribunal (ET) and Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) (where the case was heard before the CoA and went in his favour both times), the law firm pointed out that Lutz wore a uniform and had to have a Ryanair ID card.  

“He had to pass Ryanair competency assessments, the base from which he worked was set by Ryanair [and] Ryanair set the rosters which were ‘on the same basis’ for employed [pilots]”, continued Brabners. 

“[Lutz] booked his annual leave and time off with Ryanair. He swapped shifts through Ryanair’s ‘Crew Dock’ process.  

“[And even a] disciplinary process which ultimately led to the termination of his assignment was conducted by Ryanair.”  

‘Independent Consultant Lutz’ 

Despite the numerous pointers away from self-employment, Lutz was described, contractually, as an “Independent Consultant”, Gabriel Morrison, Senior Associate Solicitor at Leigh Day, pointed out yesterday to Kingsbridge.  

But another title, also potentially designed to disguise employment – “Customer Representative” – was further bestowed on Lutz. 

Legal advisory Chartergates says: “Ryanair and the agency [Storm Global Ltd] entered an agreement.” 

“[Under it] the agency would agree to engage personal service companies (i.e. limited companies) that would agree to make their ‘Customer Representatives’ (i.e. contracted pilots) available for the provision of services to Ryanair.”   

‘Customer Representative Lutz’ 

However, it wasn’t just “Independent Consultant” and “Customer Representative” that Lutz was christened, seemingly, to point away from an employment relationship. 

Alexandra Addington of legal services provider Irwin Mitchell says: “Lutz successfully applied to Ryanair to work as a contracted pilot.” 

“[However, the agency in this case], MCG [formerly Storm Global Ltd], then contacted him and requested that he establish a service company, which he called Dishford Port Ltd.  

“A service agreement was entered into between Mr Lutz…[who became known as] Dishford’s ‘Company Representative’.” 

‘Company Representative Lutz’ 

“[And] the schedule to the agreement”, added Addington, “stated that ‘The Company Representative’ shall perform the duties as pilot as required”. 

Yet an even bigger “camouflaging” of Lutz’s employment arrangement existed, says Ryan Dawson. 

And it wasn’t any of his three titles, even if the decorative trio did facilitate Ryanair/Storm Global Ltd.’s arguments to the ET and EAT that Lutz was not an employee or worker of either of them.  

‘Storm Global Ltd instructed Lutz to become a personal service company’ 

“Following his application for employment to Ryanair to be a pilot, and after passing a preliminary assessment carried out by Ryanair, Lutz was contacted by Storm Global Ltd (SGL)”, says Dawson, Kingsbridge’s IR35 Project Manager.  

“Well, the recruitment agency instructed Lutz to become – and effectively placed him into – an Irish personal service company.” 

‘Jason Lutz’s PSC, Dishford Ltd, was a fiction’ 

Obtained by Kingsbridge, notes by the barristers who represented Lutz at the CoA, Michael Ford KC and Stuart Brittenden KC, both of Farrer & Co, confirm: 

“At SGL’s instruction, [Lutz] was ‘installed’ into a personal service company set up for him called Dishford.  

“The ET found that the interposition of a service company was a ‘fiction’, presumably intended to camouflage the existence of an employment relationship between SGL and JL [Jason Lutz].  

“The Court of Appeal referred to the ‘distinctly unsatisfactory nature’ of these arrangements.” 

‘The personal service company arrangement was fictitious’ 

Despite making the reference, the CoA was only tasked to hear SGL’s two-fold appeal, clarifies Leigh Day’s Mr Morrison. 

The first part of the appeal focused on whether Lutz was a “crew member” for SGL (under the Civil Aviation Working Time Regulations 2004). The second part concerned the definition of “temporary” under the Agency Workers Regulations. 

In other words, “by the time the matter reached the CoA, it was accepted by all parties that the personal service company arrangement was fictitious”, says Chartergates. 

‘Dishford wasn’t actually a personal service company’ 

Except in a further twist that appears to highlight the artificiality in play, “it wasn’t actually a personal service company”, legal consultant Roger Sinclair, of Egos, told Kingsbridge. 

“[Dishford was] just a company which I understand was dedicated to a single purpose”, Mr Sinclair said last night.  

“Lutz was neither the company’s director nor even its secretary!”  

‘Accountants on recruitment agency Storm Global’s PSL managed Lutz’s limited company for him’ 

A little taken aback, Kingsbridge’s Mr Dawson implied you couldn’t make it up.  

Upon looking into Mr Sinclair’s assessment, Mr Dawson confirmed: “Yes, it’s true – Lutz actually had very little to do with the PSC that was set up for him.  

“Indeed, it was subsequently managed by a firm of accountants on the agency’s Preferred Supplier List [PSL]! Little wonder, perhaps, that it’s now dissolved.”  

‘Key takeaway of Lutz v Ryanair is that his personal service company was a sham’ 

According to Irwin Mitchell’s Ms Addington, the PSC being dismissed by the courts as a ‘sham’ is the “key takeaway” of ‘Lutz’ even though it emerged before the case got to the Court of Appeal (CoA).  

“Engaging individuals through an intermediary is not enough to conclusively point to self-employment”, Addington reflected online. 

“Requiring individuals to establish a service company to appear self-employed does not guarantee that this arrangement will withstand the examination of an employment tribunal. Or HMRC.” 

‘Courts now looking behind sham arrangements involving personal service companies’  

Leigh Day’s Mr Morrison agrees. He warned in a statement to the Kingsbridge Blog: “[The Lutz-Ryanair case] reiterates that courts are prepared to look behind ‘sham arrangements’ involving ‘personal service companies’ and will consider whether that arrangement is a fiction with the intention of depriving employment rights.” 

Getting support with IR35  

Navigating IR35 legislation and ensuring compliance can be challenging for contractors and businesses alike. Kingsbridge offers tailored support, including expert guidance on IR35 status assessments, compliance strategies, and risk mitigation. Their team is dedicated to helping contractors and businesses understand and adapt to the evolving tax landscape.  

They also offer a range of flexible business insurance options to support contractors, including Professional Indemnity, Public Liability, and Employers’ Liability cover, as well as add-ons like Cyber Insurance and Director and Officer’s Liability.  

To find out more, get a quote or contact their experts today.