Worker or volunteer?

[2018] SAET 190 Wieland (it was “likely that when she carried out the duties of Referee Coordination and Score Table Commissioner, Ms Wieland was acting as a genuine volunteer and that the honorariums that she received on account of them were genuinely gratuitous and were not intended to be a quid pro quo for the work done. There was no correlation between the making of the payments and the undertaking of the duties. But in contrast to this, when she worked as a court supervisor and as a referee coach and was paid for that work, there was a direct correlation between the making of the payment and the undertaking of the duties. The money was only paid when she actually worked, and it was paid to her immediately upon completion of the task. She was paid by the hour, or the game, or a combination of the two. The amount that she was paid was not trifling. Although modest, both forms of payment bear resemblance to a casual rate of pay. She did the work regularly. It was demonstrably different work to her work as a Referee Coordination and Score Table Commissioner. … Her performance of these duties involved a regular and serious incursion into her own leisure time. I think she expected to be paid for it and although Basketball SA might not have believed that it was contractually bound to do so, I think it felt obliged to pay her as a quid pro quo for the work that she did. I find that there was a mutuality of obligation. … [T]here was an intention to create contractual relations” @14)