Edmonds v Lawson [2000] EWCA Civ 69[1] is a UK labour law case regarding the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and who is/is not included; it also considered whether a pupil barrister provides consideration to his/her master and/or chambers and whether that relationship demonstrated adequate intention.
It held that pupil barristers are not included as either "apprentices" (as was held at first instance) or "workers" for the purposes of the Act but they do provide adequate consideration and intention to found a contract with their chambers.
Rebecca Jane Edmonds was undertaking a criminal law pupillage with Michael Lawson QC's chambers, 23 Essex Street.
He emphasised that at the end of the long procedure leading up to pupillage it would be surprising if there were no intention for a contract at all.
It makes no difference that, if the pupil defaulted, the chambers would be most unlikely to sue; the same is true if an employer engages a junior employee under an employment contract which is undoubtedly binding, and the employee fails to turn up on the appointed day.Subsequently the Bar Council agreed to regulate the funding of pupillage, setting a minimum pupillage award of £10,000 a year, which at the time matched the minimum wage.