The appellants' counsel said that in one sense they were engaged in a common venture with the owner of their vessel. The evidence was that they were treated as employees for tax purposes, but were not paid a wage. Some uncertainty exists as to the precise basis on which they were paid. One of the owners of the vessel, Mr. G.V. Christopher, said that the crayfish caught were "weighed individually for each diver", but the general burden of his evidence appeared to be that the allocation of the proceeds of the catch depended substantially upon estimation. Mr. Christopher gave evidence to the effect that the appellants and he would decide on a likely price for the product, say $32 a kilogram, and that sum would then be divided between the owners and the crew, allowing $2 or $3 a kilogram for the owners' expenses and dividing the remaining proceeds equally between the owners, on the one hand, and the crew on the other. The important point is that whether they were employees or not, the appellants' return from their activities was a share of the amounts received, or estimated to be likely to be received, for the catch. The appellants had no proprietary or possessory interest in the fishing vessel and were far removed from any proprietorial role. They had no interest in the vessel or the business, and the best description of the arrangement is that they were crewmen who were paid under an incentive system.