NMWM04160 - Status: example of court consideration: 4
Edmonds v Lawson (2000) ICR 567, Court of Appeal
This case concerned Ms Edmonds, a pupil barrister who claimed that she was entitled to the minimum wage on the basis that she had entered into or worked under a contract of apprenticeship: the requirement of being a 바카라 사이트śworker바카라 사이트ť and for present purposes that she was a person who entered into or worked under a 바카라 사이트ścontract of employment바카라 사이트ť were satisfied; that such a contract was defined by section 54(2) as a contract of service or apprenticeship. Before the High Court, the claimant was successful in her argument that she had entered into or worked under a contract of apprenticeship, but this ruling was later overturned by the Court of Appeal.
The High Court held that the contract was a 바카라 사이트ścontract of apprenticeship바카라 사이트ť. The Court of Appeal held that this was wrong and that pupillage was a contract of education and training. If however, a pupil is contracted to undertake any tasks that go beyond education and training, the pupillage may be construed as a contract of apprenticeship.
The court considered that the arrangement lacked the characteristics of a commercial contract (i.e. no payment on either side; that it was voluntary and gratuitous by chambers to provide education and training; that there was doubt as to who, on chambers바카라 사이트™ side had entered into the arrangement; that, given the regulatory materials, a contract was unnecessary, the Bar바카라 사이트™s disciplinary machinery providing a pupil with ample redress were chambers to renege on the arrangement.
On the question of consideration, the court referred to the argument that while chambers undertook to provide a closely prescribed curriculum of education and training the pupil no longer paid any fee and, in the court바카라 사이트™s view, did not undertake anything beyond what was conducive to his training or education.
The court concluded that the claimant did not enter into or work under a contract of apprenticeship or an equivalent contract. She did not meet the definition of a worker since the contract was specifically for training purposes and not to perform work.