Contract case reading exercise
The claimant in this case is named Rebecca Jane Edmonds born on the 1 November 1968 at the time of the case she was aged 31. She graduated from Oxford with a degree in English and worked within the information technology industry for sometime before deciding to become a lawyer. She undertook a M.A course at the University of Kent at Canterbury. Following this she studied for the common professional examination at the University of Westminster. Edmonds did a number of mini pupillages and successfully found herself at the Inns of Court school of law. During her year there she decided to pursue a career at the criminal bar. After contacting a number of chambers specialising in crime she was invited to an interview at Mr. Lawson’s’ chambers at 23, Essex street, a large and highly regarded set of criminal chambers. Edmonds was offered by the head of the chambers an unfounded 12-month pupilage at the chambers on 21st Aug 1998.
Michael Lawson was sued by claimant Rebecca Edmonds on his own behalf and behalf of all the members of chambers, at 23 Essex Street London the second defendant Rupert Pardoe and the third Oscar del Fabbro, for declaratory relief Edmonds claimed that as a pupil over the age of 26, and engaged in pupilage in those chambers, where she remained for 12 months, she was a worker within the meaning of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Edmonds claims that she accepted a written offer for unremunerated pupillage for a period of twelve months and she had therefore entered into a contract of apprentership with the first defendant Michael Lawson. Section 54 of The National Minimum Wage Act states: “ ‘contract of employment’ means a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether express or implied, and (if it is expressed) whether oral or in writing…” As defined by section 54 of the act of 1998 she was a worker and accordingly qualified for the National Minimum Wage to be calculated in accordance with the acts regulations 1999. The defendants denied the claim and in particular they denied that the offer made to the claimant indicated any intention by them to create legal relations or to an offer to enter into a contract of apprenticship with them.
