By Jeremy Harrison -
Snapshot
- The meaning of the word ‘occupation’ in contracts and legislation has been considered over decades.
- Recent consideration of the word by the Supreme Court of NSW emphasises ‘occupation’ does not mean ‘job’.
- The interpretation of ‘occupation’ calls for more factors to be considered which ordinarily will include qualifications and prior employment experience.
In a variety of contexts, litigants have called upon courts to interpret the word ‘occupation’.
For decades, in the course of interpreting legislation and contracts, questions about the meaning of the term ‘occupation’ have arisen at trial and on appeal, and at federal and state levels.
Against that background, this article considers how the Federal Court of Australia construed the term ‘occupation’ in two migration decisions, and how the New South Wales Supreme Court recently used the Federal Court’s approach to determine a dispute arising from a life insurance contract.
