British Nursing Association v Inland Revenue [2002] EWCA Civ 494 is a UK labour law case regarding the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.

However, the main argument, raised against those findings, which seem to me at the very lowest entirely open to the Employment Tribunal applying to the facts its understanding and experience of industrial relations, was the argument developed before us by Mr Epstein that, as a matter of law, the Regulations made a distinction between work at the employer's work place and activities carried on - and I will use that expression neutrally for the moment - at the worker's own home.

But both Tribunals were faced with the difficulty that the parties had agreed at all stages that Regulation 15(1) was indeed the governing provision in this case, and there is, and probably could not be, any cross-appeal as to the limitations on the extent of the employees' "work" that the Employment Appeal Tribunal drew, in the light of those submissions, from the terms of Regulation 15(1).

Second, the difficulty that has been experienced in this case in interpreting Regulation 15(1) springs from what I would see as the artificiality of its applying to the present facts at all.

When a worker falls into that category, he has to be paid the minimum wage for his waiting hours, unless he is on call at home.

I respectfully agree with the very clear analysis of the Employment Appeal Tribunal to that effect in paragraphs 28 to 30 of its judgment.

However, as I have said, the structure and history of the proceedings makes it in my view impossible to escape from the limitation imposed by the Employment Tribunal that the workers should not be paid for the hours they are permitted to sleep.

On the facts of this case, that presents considerable difficulties of assessment, as set out by the Employment Tribunal in paragraphs 44 to 45 of its determination, which I think I need not take time in citing.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to look at the Parliamentary debates in order to establish some sort of congruence between the present provisions and the Working Time Directive and Regulations.

Mr Epstein showed good judgement in not pursuing that particular thread of his argument in this court.