That para refers to this from FTT
50. Paragraph 4.1 of the Terms and Conditions for the 2013 Contract (substantially replicated as paragraph 4.1(a) of the Terms and Conditions for the 2015 Contract) which provides that, "the Services will be rendered to the best of the Company's and the Personnel's abilities and all directions and requests given by BSkyB or its nominees will be complied with." We do not accept Mr Firth's submission that this is to be construed as meaning that Sky is unable to require Mr Thompson to express opinions which he did not believe or otherwise to control what he says or to restrict his opinions. This paragraph is unambiguous and does not make any reference to Mr Thompson's opinions. As such, there is no room for Mr Firth's construction.
Then on Control the FTT concluded (I quoted (5) earlier):
View attachment 150333
I've not read in detail but it is only theoretical that Sky could direct Thompson or anyone so HMRC succeeded on that point notwithstanding the reality. Para 51 says
"Similarly, given the emphasis on reasonableness elsewhere in the Contract and as part of the factual matrix as a whole, we find that it is so obvious to go without saying that the parties did not intend that Sky be entitled to make or give unreasonable directions and requests. It might well be, therefore, that in practice Mr Thompson would not be obliged to express opinions which he did not believe or otherwise to control what he says or to restrict his opinions. However, this is a feature of such a direction or request being unreasonable and in breach of the implied term rather than being the proper construction of paragraph 4.1 (or paragraph 4.1(a)) itself."
By the way, here is a good example of the chaos that will ensue after the decision is published from people claiming it says one thing and others claiming it says something different - and nobody will know for sure. It is possible to have 2 valid interpretations.