13 CGU rejected the claim on the basis, amongst others, that it was not legally responsible to indemnify Orica because liability only arose when the worker suffered damage which, on the facts of the worker's claim, occurred in August 2001 and therefore well outside the period of insurance. In considering the circumstances in which an employer may be "liable" for damages, all members of the NSW Court of Appeal agreed that words such as "liable" and "liability" are terms capable of varying meanings in particular circumstances. The ascertainment of their specific meaning must depend on the context, broadly defined, in which they are used. In particular, Spigelman CJ noted that determination of the meaning of the word "liability" in the context of this case would also turn on the precise words of the policy and their specific context. Even though the policy was in a mandatory statutory form, Spigelman CJ noted that the policy had to be construed as a contract and the extent of any indemnity in favour of the worker must be found in the language of the policy. Spigelman CJ and Mason P found that the worker, in order to obtain the benefit of the statutory policy, must establish that the employer became "liable to pay" an amount with respect to its liability to the employer between the two dates identified in each policy. Santow JA reached a different conclusion. In his Honour's analysis, the policy did not require that sufficient events had needed to come to pass to establish a cause of action in negligence against the employer within the year of cover. Santow JA considered that the narrower meaning of "liability" was not the sense in which the policy used that term, and to find otherwise would produce an unreasonable, even oppressive result, which would defeat the main commercial object of the policy. His Honour continued at [87]: