149 In relation to this issue, Zurich suggests that to read the word "Insured" as if it referred to Hamersley rather than Speno, would be to create a "dramatic and totally different risk ... when it could not have been intended by the parties." However, there is nothing in the circumstances of the contract which, to my mind, indicates that the intention of the parties was to exclude liability only in respect of persons employed by Speno. One can readily imagine circumstances in which liability would arise in Hamersley for injury arising out of the course of employment of one of its employees as a result of the performance of the contract by Speno. In precisely this situation, Hamersley employees could have been working or travelling nearby when the HIRail was derailed and have been injured as a result; or, to adapt the example given by Mr Pullin QC in another context, Hamersley could have negligently permitted or directed Speno to park the HIRail or to place other equipment in an area where it posed a hazard to the employees of Hamersley. A risk of this kind would, one would assume, be covered by Hamersley's own employer's liability policy, and it would appear to me to be entirely possible that the parties would have intended that Zurich's liability to Hamersley in respect of Hamersley's own employees should therefore be excluded. There appears to me to be no particular reason, having regard to the purpose and scope of the policy, to consider that the parties would have intended the reference to the Insured in this clause always to read as a reference to Speno.