Decision Impact Statement March 2026

 

EnergyAustralia Yallourn Pty Ltd v CoINVEST Limited [2025] VSC 100

And

Detector Inspector (Vic) Pty Ltd v CoINVEST Limited [2025] VSC 135

Court: Supreme Court of Victoria, Watson J | Judgment date: 25 March 2025

Construction Industry Long Service Leave Act 1997 (Act) | Rules of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave Fund (Rules)

Downloadable PDF version of the full Decision Impact Statement (Updated 26 March 2026).

Appeal update:

  • EnergyAustralia: EnergyAustralia Yallourn Pty Ltd’s application for leave to appeal from the judgment of Watson J was heard before Emerton P, McLeish and Richards JJA on 17 March 2026. Their Honours have reserved their decision.
  • Detector Inspector: On 17 March 2026, Detector Inspector (Vic) Pty Ltd discontinued its application for leave to appeal from the judgment of Watson J, which had been scheduled to be heard by the Court of Appeal on 20 March 2026.

Main Points

  • The Supreme Court decisions comprehensively confirm LeavePlus’ interpretation of the Act and Rules
  • Employers and workers can be certain that the Act and Rules are enforceable.
  • Employers can be in more than one industry at a time.
  • Employers need to comply with obligations to register, make returns and pay charges if their business activities take them into a construction industry as defined by the Rules.

How employers and workers can rely on this impact statement

  1.  This statement explains LeavePlus’ view about the significance for the construction industry of the two recent Supreme Court decisions.
  2.  The decisions validate LeavePlus’ interpretation of the Act and the Rules and provide clarity to workers and employers in the construction industry. The decisions specifically rebuff the cases advanced by EnergyAustralia and Detector Inspector, which if accepted, would have narrowed the scope of the LeavePlus scheme to the detriment of workers who perform construction work in allied construction industries.
  3.  EnergyAustralia’s workers are examples of the workers whose interests the scheme was designed to protect.  EnergyAustralia has at various times outsourced its maintenance work, then insourced that work during the period 2017 to 2021, and may outsource the work again.  Because of the LeavePlus scheme recognising this work as construction work, the workers who move between EnergyAustralia and its outsourced service providers do not miss out on long service leave entitlements, due to the portable nature of the scheme.
  4.  The same applies to Detector Inspector, given the intentional expansion of the scheme in 1998, following Governor in Council approval, to include electrical contracting services as part of the allied construction industry for the purposes of the Act and the Rules.
  5.  Employers and workers can rely on this statement when considering if they have an obligation under the Act to pay long service leave charges to LeavePlus for their workers who perform construction work.
  6.  Workers can rely on this statement when considering whether the work they do is construction work in the terms of the Act and the Rules.

Principles

  1. LeavePlus considers that the following principles emerge from the Supreme Court’s decisions in the EnergyAustralia (EAY) and Detector Inspector (DI) cases.
No. Issue Finding (with judgment and paragraph references)
1.         The construction of the Rules In construing the Act and the Rules, the task is to ascertain meaning by reference to text, context and purpose (DI, [43]). There is no need to adopt a narrower approach simply because the charge imposed under the Act is effectively a tax (DI, [48]).
Is an employer ‘in the construction industry’? In determining whether an employer is ‘in the construction industry’:

(a)  The definition of ‘construction industry’ is a reference to the industry of the employer (EAY, [33]);

(b)  A ‘substantial character’ test based on ‘orthodox principles’ derived from union rules and industrial instruments interpretation does not apply in construing the meaning of ‘construction industry’ in the Rules;

(c)  For an activity of an employer to place that employer ‘in the construction industry’, it is necessary that the activity be something which is part of the employer’s ‘overall business purpose’ (EAY, [34 to 35; 43]);

(d)  The following factors are relevant to determining whether the activity of an employer forms part of the employer’s ‘overall business purpose’ and result in that employer being in the industry related to those activities (EAY, [44 and 72] [72]):

i.  Whether the activity is integral and proximate to the business’ primary purpose.

ii.  The scale and size of that activity.

iii.  The proportion of the paid workforce engaged in the relevant activity.

(e)  The fact that an employer employs some workers to perform the relevant activities will not, alone, establish that the employer is ‘in the construction industry’ [EAY, 43]). The factors in paragraph (d) must also be considered – namely whether the activity performed by that worker is integral to the primary purpose of the business, the size and scale of the activity by reference to the overall activities of the employer and the proportion or number of paid workers engaged in that activity.

(f)  Whether an employer is ‘substantially engaged’ in the relevant industry is not relevant to determining if the employer is in that industry (EAY, [43]).

(g)  An employer can be in more than one industry (EAY, [47]); and

(h)  Whether an employer is in the relevant industry is not characterised by the activities for which they are paid by a third party (EAY, [75]).
3.         When is work ‘routine or minor’ in nature? In determining whether routine or minor maintenance carveout applies:

(a)  The carve out only applies where an employer is not ‘substantially in’ the Construction Industry (DI, [59]). If an employer is ‘substantially’ engaged in the construction industry, the carve out will not apply even if the work is routine or minor (EAY, [78]).

(b)  That an activity is planned, regular, recurring or unvarying is not determinative of the characterisation of ‘routine’ in the context of the carveout (EAY, [82]).

(c)  ‘routine’ work means something that is of a ‘mundane character’ (or is unvarying, unimaginative or rote) (EAY, [82]).

(d)  it does not require an identification of the predominant purpose of the employer, because an employer may be substantially within more than two industries (DI, [37], citing EAY decision).
4.         What does it mean for work to be ‘work of a kind’ for which a rate of pay was fixed by a prescribed award? In determining whether work is ‘of a kind’ for which a rate of pay was fixed by a prescribed award:

(a)  Whether a prescribed award in fact fixed a rate of pay for a particular worker is not critical in determining whether the work was ‘construction work’ within the meaning of the Rules (EAY, [91(b) and 92].

(b)  In determining coverage prior to November 2014, the scope of a relevant prescribed award was relevant in determining the ‘genus’ of the work in order to determine whether that work was ‘of a kind’ for which a rate of pay was fixed by that award (EAY, [96]), (DI, [79(e)]). and

(c)  If the work is ‘of a kind’ which is within the scope of the prescribed award, and for which that award fixes a rate of pay, and the genus of the work performed by the relevant worker is the same as that described work, that requirement of the definition will be satisfied notwithstanding that the worker may not have been covered by the relevant award (EAY, [102]).
5.         Referendum requirement when the Trust Deed is amended (clause 13.4 of Trust Deed)

 

 Under the Trust Deed, a referendum is required to amend (DI, [98-100]):

(a)  Clause 13.4 itself, that is, the mechanism to amend the Trust Deed; or

(b)  Any terms used in clause 13.4 that are defined under clause 1 of the Trust Deed.
6.         Referendum requirement when the Rules are amended (Rule 5)

 

 Under the Rules, a referendum is required to (DI, [104-105]):

(a)  Amend Rule 5 itself, that is, the mechanism to amend the Trust Deed.

Or

(b)  Any terms used in Rule 5 that are defined under Rule 1 of the Rules.
7.         When is Governor in Council approval required?

 

 Under section 7 of the Act, an approval of the Governor in Council is only required if the effect of the exercise of the power, authority or discretion given to LeavePlus is to enlarge the class of persons capable of being paid benefits out of the fund (DI, [54]).

In considering whether the class of persons capable of being paid benefits out of the fund is enlarged, regard is to be given to the definitions of ‘continuous service’ and ‘service’ as defined under the Rules (DI, [68]).
8.         Severability of invalid Rules? As to whether any invalid Rules could be severed such that a previous version of the Rules applied:

In obiter, even if the November 2014 amendments were wholly invalid, the former Rules would apply such that workers could be said to fall within the meaning of those Rules and so still be covered by the scheme (EAY, [107]), (DI, [126-127]).

 

Summary of the judgments

EnergyAustralia Yallourn Pty Ltd v CoINVEST Limited [2025] VSC 100

  1.  In 2023, a dispute arose between EnergyAustralia Yallourn Pty Ltd (EnergyAustralia) and CoINVEST Ltd as trustee for the construction industry long service leave fund trading as LeavePlus (LeavePlus) as to whether EnergyAustralia was required to pay long service leave charges to LeavePlus, in respect of its workers who repaired and maintained the four base load steam turbine generators that comprise the Yallourn power station that EnergyAustralia owns and operates. The power station site includes a coal mine supplying coal exclusively for the power station.
  2.  EnergyAustralia’s case advanced three broad propositions[1]:

(a) It was not ‘in the construction industry’ in the terms of the Act and the Rules.

(b) Its workers carried out maintenance or repairs of a ‘routine or minor nature’ that was excluded from the definition of construction work in the Rules.

(c) That the work was excluded from the definition of construction work because it was not work of a kind for which a rate of pay was fixed by a prescribed award as at 6 May 2014.

Is EnergyAustralia in the construction industry

  1.  In summary, EnergyAustralia contended[2]:

(a) The definition of construction industry in the Rules is a definition which refers to the industry of an employer rather than to the occupation or work of an employer’s workers.

(b) The ‘orthodox’ approach to determining whether an employer is in an industry is to determine the ‘substantial character’ of its enterprise (‘substantial character test’).

(c) Applying this test, the substantial character of EnergyAustralia’s enterprise is the generation of electricity.

(d) The maintenance or repair of its structures for the generation of electric power are integrated with and incidental to the activity of generating electricity.

(e) EnergyAustralia does not charge external clients for services relating to the maintenance of or repairs to structures for the generation of electricity.

and

(f) By reason of the above, EnergyAustralia is not in the construction industry as defined by the Rules.

  1.  His Honour, Justice Watson, considered that there was a strong textual indication in the Rules that the substantial character test did not apply. At [39] he said:

‘The definition of construction work specifically excludes ‘maintenance or repairs of a routine or minor nature by a worker for an employer who is not engaged substantially in the construction industry’ (‘the routine or minor maintenance carve out’).  If an employer could only be in the construction industry if they met a substantial character test, the emphasised words in the routine or minor maintenance carve out would have no work to do.’

  1.  EnergyAustralia sought to distinguish between the substantial character test, that it said was concerned with the true character of its enterprise, and being engaged substantially in an industry, that was concerned with the scale of the activities.
  2.  His Honour rejected that argument as imposing on the rules a strained and unlikely construction. His Honour instead considered that EnergyAustralia could be in the industry of repairing or maintaining structures used to generate electricity without needing to be ‘substantially’ in that industry[3].   His Honour accepted it was not enough, without consideration of other factors, that there be some employees of EnergyAustralia involved in repairing or maintaining structures or works involved in the generation of electricity.  Rather, it was necessary to show that the activity could properly be described as something which is part of EnergyAustralia’s overall business purpose (‘overall business purpose test’).
  3.  EnergyAustralia’s primary purpose, it may be accepted, was the generation of electricity for sale. However, the evidence showed that in order to fulfill that primary purpose, it has to devote very considerable resources to the maintenance and repair of the structures or works involved in the generation of that electricity.
  4.  It made sense, as a matter of ordinary language, to describe EnergyAustralia’s business purpose as including the repair and maintenance of the power station’s electricity generation equipment and plant. It made sense, as a matter of ordinary language, to describe it as being in the industry of repairing and maintaining those structures or works as well as being in the industry of generating electricity[4].
  5.  The process of characterisation that the Rules require, is capable of leading to a conclusion that a worker is employed in more than one industry where the industry definitions are broad and may seem to be overlapping[5].

The minor works exclusion

  1.  EnergyAustralia argued that even if it was ‘in’ the construction industry, it nevertheless fell outside the Act and the Rules based on the ‘minor works’ exclusion to the definition of construction work.  That is, that the works in question were maintenance and repair work of a routine or minor nature by a worker for an employer who is not engaged substantially in the construction industry.
  2.  His Honour held that EnergyAustralia is substantially engaged in the construction industry, having regard to the importance of the maintenance and repair works to its overall operations, as well as the size of the workforce and cost expended by EnergyAustralia on these activities. Accordingly, on that basis alone, the exclusion was not available to EnergyAustralia.
  3.  His Honour accepted that the word ‘routine’ has shades of meaning and should be discerned from the context in which it is employed. In this case, his Honour said the work was not routine just because it is planned and regular (rather interestingly using the analogy of the Olympics which is planned and regular but could not be said to be a routine sporting event). In his Honour’s view, the repair and maintenance work of EnergyAustralia is of such a scale, involves such a degree of planning and appears to have such a standalone character that it could not have the mundane character… which the compound phrase ‘routine or minor’ implies[6].

The validity of the 2014 amendments

  1.  His Honour accepted EnergyAustralia’s submission that it was not necessary for the court to determine the validity of the 2014 Rule amendments, and went on to state he would not offer a view ‘in this proceeding’. [This was addressed by his Honour in the Detector Inspector decision instead.]
  2.  His Honour considered that, even if the 2014 amendments were wholly invalid (and that is not a matter on which he offered any view in the EnergyAustralia proceeding) for the foregoing reasons some, at least, of EnergyAustralia’s maintenance employees would have performed construction work in the construction industry within the meaning of the pre-November 2014 Rules[7].

Is the repair and maintenance work of a kind for which a rate of pay was fixed by a prescribed award?

  1.  The words ‘work of a kind for which a rate of pay is fixed by a [prescribed award]’ do not require that the prescribed award, prior to 2014, applied industrially to the employer’s enterprise.
  2.  His Honour said “Baytech[8] makes clear that the scope of the relevant prescribed award was relevant in determining the ‘genus’ of work in order to determine whether work was ‘of a kind’ for which a rate of pay was fixed by that award, but what is equally clear is that respondency to the prescribed award was not the relevant discrimen of whether work fell within that description’[9].
  3.  His Honour went on to say that ascertaining the relevant genus of work remains to be ascertained. His Honour then referred to the AWU Construction Award and held that it covered work of the same genus as the work performed by some of EAY’s maintenance workers. His Honour also held the Metal Trades Award covered work of the same genus as the work performed by some other of EnergyAustralia’s maintenance workers[10].
  4.  His Honour said that LeavePlus did not need to establish (for the purposes of succeeding in the proceeding) that all EnergyAustralia’s maintenance and repair workers carried out work of a kind for which a rate of pay was fixed by a prescribed award.
  5.  It was enough for LeavePlus to succeed to show that some did[11]. For that reason, having regard to the two mentioned awards, his Honour found in LeavePlus’ favour.

Conclusion

  1.  His Honour concluded[12] that:

(a) EnergyAustralia is in the construction industry as that term is defined in the Rules.

(b) EnergyAustralia is substantially engaged in the construction industry.  Alternatively, the work performed by EnergyAustralia’s maintenance and repair workers is not routine or minor. Hence EnergyAustralia cannot avail itself of the minor works exclusion found in the construction work definition in the Rules.

(c) At least some of the work performed by EnergyAustralia’s maintenance and repair workers is work of a kind for which a rate of pay was fixed by a prescribed award as at 6 May 2014.

(d) EnergyAustralia’s applications for declarations should be dismissed.

 

Detector Inspector (Vic) Pty Ltd v CoINVEST Limited [2025] VSC 135

  1.  Detector Inspector operates a business carrying out safety checks and maintenance of smoke alarms, electrical and gas appliances in residential rental properties in Victoria. It employs gas fitters, electricians and smoke detector technicians.
  2.  On 20 February 2024, through the process available to employers under Rules 59 and 60 of the Rules, LeavePlus determined that Detector Inspector’s workers were performing construction work and that Detector Inspector was required to pay long service leave charges to LeavePlus for that work, in accordance with the Act and the Rules.
  3.  Detector Inspector said its workers were not performing construction work and so it was not required to pay charges to LeavePlus. It applied to the court for an order quashing LeavePlus’ determination, declarations to the effect that its workers are not covered by the portable long service leave scheme and a mandatory injunction seeking return of an amount it paid to LeavePlus in respect of the workers, together with interest.
  4.  Its case amounted to a series of highly technical challenges to the validity of amendments to the Rules between 1997 and 2014 and in particular, the 11 November 2014 amendment that replaced the former Rules with the current Rules.
  5.  The court rejected the entirety of Detector Inspector’s challenges and confirmed that the Rules were at all relevant times, valid and enforceable against Detector Inspector.

Relevance of the Act imposing a ‘tax’

  1.  Detector Inspector contended section 4 of the Act imposed a tax and that should lead the court to narrowly construe LeavePlus’ power to amend the Rules. His Honour held that just because the charges have the characteristic of tax, does not mean that the Rules should be interpreted narrowly. His Honour further held that the usual principles of interpretation will still apply and the characterisation of the Act as a taxing statute is part of context relevant to the task of construing the Act in accordance with those principles.[13]

Requirement to obtain Governor in Council approval in the circumstances described in section 7(2)

  1.  Section 7(1) of the Act requires LeavePlus to obtain Governor in Council approval for any amendment of the Rules that would enlarge the class of beneficiaries entitled to be paid a long service leave benefit from the construction industry long service leave fund.
  2.  LeavePlus did not obtain that approval for the 11 November 2014 Rule amendments that effectively replaced the entirety of the previous Rules, based on its view that the replacement Rules did not enlarge the class of fund beneficiaries.
  3.  Detector Inspector contended that section 7(2) of the Act was a deeming provision which in effect created a statutory requirement that any amendment to the ‘Construction Industry’ definition was one which required prior approval of the Governor in Council, whether or not it had the effect of enlarging the class of persons capable of being paid benefits out of the fund.
  4.  Rejecting Detector Inspector’s argument, His Honour preferred a construction of section 7(2) as being a ‘for the avoidance of doubt provision’, and not a deeming provision. Hence, LeavePlus did not require prior approval to amend the ‘Construction Industry’ definition, unless the requirements of section 7(1) were met – that is, unless the effect of the amendment was to enlarge the class of fund beneficiaries[14].

Challenges to the validity of the 2014 Replacement Rules as expanding the class of scheme beneficiaries without prior approval

The minor works exclusion

  1.  In the former Rules, the routine or minor maintenance carve out was an exception to the definition of Construction Industry. In the current Rules, those words are an exception to the definition of Construction Work.
  2.  Detector Inspector contended, among other things, that moving the routine or minor maintenance carve out from the definition of Construction Industry to the definition of Construction Work enlarged the class of persons capable of being paid benefits out of the fund, contrary to s 7(1) of the Act[15].
  3.  While the routine or minor maintenance amendment enlarged the definition of ‘Construction Industry’, it did not enlarge the class of persons capable of being paid benefits out of the fund, and therefore did not require prior approval. That was because, for an employer not substantially in the construction under the former rules, though its characterisation changed under the current rules, its employees’ work would be excluded from construction work[16].

The ECI award amendment – Removal of the rate of pay wording from the definition of ‘Electrical Services’

  1.  In the former Rules, Electrical Services were defined as:

(a) The maintenance of electric power distribution lines and all associated work; and/or

(b) The installation of electric light and power, all classes of assembly, wiring, repair and maintenance of electrical installations and appliances including, without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, the assembling, installing, diagnosing, servicing and rectifying of faults in any of the following:
…
(xiv) fire alarm systems;
…
by Workers for Employers and/or by Working Sub-Contractors who contract to provide such services for which a rate of pay is prescribed under the Electrical Contracting Industry Award.

  1.  The 2014 amendment removed the ECI Award condition and replaced it with a list of included and excluded services[17].
  2.  Detector Inspector argued that properly understood, the ECI Award condition applied only to workers who were subject to the ECI Award. So, replacing the ECI Award condition with the current contracting restriction expanded the definition of Construction Industry and enlarged the class of persons capable of being paid benefits out of the fund, because it applied to other workers.
  3.  His Honour rejected that construction of the ECI Award condition, finding that it did not require workers be subject (from an industrial perspective) to the Award and so, the current contracting restriction accurately reflected the previous ECI Award condition[18].

The inclusion of fire alarm systems work into the definition of Electrical Services

  1.  His Honour rejected Detector Inspector’s argument that the current definition of ‘Electrical Services’ contained what it claimed were additional words that the previous ECI Award definition did not contain. His Honour rejected the argument, finding that the current definition accurately picked up the elements of the previous definition[19].

Removal of references to prescribed awards

  1.  In the former Rules and current Rules, Construction Work comprised Building Trades Work, Electrical Trades Work, Metal Trades Work and Other Trades Work.
  2.  The former Rules defined the terms ‘Building Trades Work’, ‘Electrical Trades Work’ and ‘Metal Trades Work’ as follows:

‘Building Trades Work’ means work:
(a) performed in the Construction Industry in Victoria, being:

(i) work of a kind for which a rate of pay is fixed by a Prescribed Building Award; or

…
‘Electrical Trades Work’ means work:
(a) performed in the Construction Industry in Victoria, being:

(i) work of a kind for which a rate of pay is fixed by a Prescribed Electrical Contracting Award; or

…
‘Metal Trades Work’ means work:
(a) performed in the Construction Industry in Victoria, being:

(i) work of a kind for which a rate of pay is fixed by a Prescribed Metal Award or a Prescribed Engine Driving Award

  1.  Detector Inspector contended that, indirectly, the removal of the references to prescribed awards in the current Rules had the effect of expanding the scope of construction work. That was because, it contended, the former Rules required an employer to be respondent to a prescribed award, whilst the current Rules apply to employers who would not have been respondent to the prescribed awards.
  2.  His Honour rejected that construction, on the basis it gives the words ‘work of a kind’ in the phrase ‘work of a kind for which a rate of pay is fixed under a [prescribed] award’ no work to do. Hi Honour referred to Baytech[20]as demonstrating that it is sufficient that the work performed by the employees for the employer is of the same ‘genus’ as work for which a rate of pay is fixed under a prescribed award. The definitions of the former Rules did not require an Employer to be a respondent to a prescribed award.

The 2008 amendment to the definition of ‘Award’ is not invalid

  1.  His Honour also rejected[21] Detector Inspector’s argument that a 2008 amendment to the definition of ‘Award’ in the former Rules required Governor-in-Council approval because, it claimed, the amendment enlarged the definition of construction work. That argument depended on Detector Inspector’s contention that section 7(2) of the Act required prior approval for such an amendment, a contention his Honour had already rejected.
  2.  His Honour went on to decide the amendment did not enlarge the class of fund beneficiaries[22].
  3.  The significance of his Honour’s ruling on this point is that the prior Rules did not require awards they prescribed to be in force at any stage, whether before the enactment of the Act in 1997 or at any later moment.
  4.  His Honour went further and ‘for completeness’ decided that if the current Rules were invalid, “there would be no occasion to quash the trustee’s determination and there would be significant questions as to whether declarations of invalidity of the 2008 and 2014 amendments should be made as a matter of discretion”[23].

The 1998 amendment

  1.  The 1998 amendment to the Rules introduced the definition of ‘Electrical Services’ for which the trustee had obtained prior approval.
  2.  Detector Inspector contended the 1998 amendment could not prejudicially affect it because the 1998 amendment is a statutory rule and there had been no compliance with section 17 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (SLA) requiring the publication of a statutory rule. That consequence was the effect provided for in section 16 of the SLA.
  3.  His Honour accepted LeavePlus’ evidence that a full set of the Rules had been available on its website and capable of being downloaded since their first iteration in 1997. His Honour therefore ruled section 16 of the SLA had no effect with respect to the imposition of long service leave charges on Detector Inspector.

No referendum required

  1.  Finally, his Honour rejected arguments that a referendum for members was required for the amendments to the meaning of construction industry and the inclusion of fire alarm systems in the definition of ‘Electrical Services’ discussed earlier[24].

Conclusion

  1.  His Honour concluded that:

(a) The 1998 Rules changes, the 2008 Rule changes, and the 2014 Rules are valid and can be enforced against Detector Inspector.

(b) Detector Inspector is in the construction industry and its workers are covered by the scheme.

(c) The proceeding be dismissed, with costs following the event.

Appeals

  • EnergyAustralia and Detector Inspector had until Tuesday 6 May 2025 to apply for leave to appeal from his Honour’s judgments.

  • EnergyAustralia Yallourn Pty Ltd has applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal from the decision of Watson J. Detector Inspector (Vic) Pty Ltd discontinued its appeal. Notice of lodgement was filed on 18 March 2026.

Comments

If you wish to comment on this statement, please direct your comments to:

Catryn Tuckwell,
Chief Legal and Compliance Officer,
Catryn.Tuckwell@leaveplus.com.au.

 

Footnote references to Supreme Court Ruling documentation for EnergyAustralia Pty Ltd v CoINVEST Limited and Detector Inspector (VIC) Pty Ltd v CoINVEST Limited:

[1] [2025] VSC 100 at [11]

[2] At [32]

[3] At [43]

[4] At [44 – 45]

[5] At [53]

[6] At [82]

[7] At [107]

[8] Baytech Trades Pty Ltd v CoInvest Ltd [2015] VSCA 342

[9] At [96]

[10] At [105]

[11] At [98]

[12] At [108]

[13] At [47 – 48]

[14] At [52]

[15] At [56]

[16] At [60–61]

[17] The judgment summarises the provision at [73].

[18] Se the discussion at [76 – 83]

[19] See the discussion at [86 – 94]

[20] Op Cit

[21] At [118]

[22] At [119 –125]

[23] At [128]

[24] At [101-102]

Share this article: