BTW. From: <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/1998/783.html" target="_blank">http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/1998/783.html</a>. .. ..... .. .23. The phrase `hire or reward' quoted above in the definition of `charter purposes' was considered by the Supreme Court of South Australia in Chegwidden v White (1985) 81 FLR 168, where Cox J observed, at 170 -171: . .. . </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">It is unnecessary in this case to attempt an exhaustive definition of the words "hire or reward" in reg 191 of the Air Navigation Regulations [which is the predecessor to, and so far as this matter is concerned in exactly the same terms as, CAR 206]. As I have said, I do not think that "hire" necessarily connotes a legally enforceable contract. Certainly "reward" does not. Usually there will be a payment in money, but this is not essential. It does not matter if the consideration cannot be quantified precisely. Sometimes the legislative context in which this phrase is used makes it plain that a course of conduct, something habitual or systematic, is indicated, but plainly that is not the case here. However, the word "for" would seem to require that the payment or recompense be the motive or purpose for the carriage. An unexpected gratuity paid after the ride would not be enough: see generally the judgment of Bray CJ (12 SASR 214) and of the High Court in Commissioner for Prices and Consumer Affairs (SA) v Charles Moore (Aust) Ltd (supra). . .... . .Broadly speaking, the purpose of the words of limitation, "hire or reward", in reg 191 is to distinguish the pilot who genuinely carries his passengers for nothing from the pilot who, directly or indirectly, makes the flight in return for some payment or other recompense. If there is any ambiguity about it, the court should bear in mind that the evident purpose of the Regulations in this respect is to promote air safety - higher qualifications are needed for a commercial pilot licence - and should give the Regulations a liberal and remedial construction. It would be strange if a pilot commits an offence if he charges $500 to fly a passenger to Sydney, but not if he charges him $600 for a trip that includes a night at the opera as well. I cannot believe that it was the intention of the Executive Government of the Commonwealth to allow the Regulations to be evaded by such a simple stratagem.'</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">[bolding added]. .. .I cannot believe that it was the intention of the Executive Government of the Commonwealth to allow the Regulations to be evaded by such a simple strategem as joining a club.