IO540 is quite correct. What I intended to convey was that there was no 'authority' on the matter because a higher court had not spoken. Magistrates' Court cases are not reported and cannot be cited in any way in any court even to another Magistrates' Court and even if the advocate appearing has personal knowledge of the earlier case.
The information I have for the CAA view of many years ago is therefore purely anecdotal from gossip at the time at the Bar (legal not public or saloon). It is subject to all the caveats of such gossip. However I think it is true. DFC explains why quite clearly it would have been rational for the CAA to take that view.
I make the point that now the 'reward', to be outside the terms of the PPL, must be something other than the flight itself. It was not clear that this was so before.
There is nothing whatever wrong with a club/school employing someone in an administrative capacity and paying them as such and also, if they have a PPL FI, allowing them to give instruction to students provided they are not paid anything additional and the student is not charged for instruction in respect of the PPL FI's time. I would add that in most instances a PPL FI would not be 'employed' by the club/school at all but be a club member.