Gzell J accepted KTI`s arguments by examining the various clauses of the option certificates and the appointment procedure. It also examined “innovation” and “transmission” and found that innovation was not a transmission. The high court`s recent decision in ALH Group Property Holdings Pty Ltd/Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2012) 245 CLR 338 (ALH decision) was invoked, Honour stated: 1 CTI argued that appointment decisions are not mandatory ownership transfer agreements, as they have resulted in innovation and not a transfer of the tender option instruments. As a novation, the new call options were replaced by the original call options, which expired. Given that the appointment decisions resulted in a renewal and not a transfer of rights in the context of the existing tendering acts, the result was that a novelty was not a transfer or sale and that the appointment decisions were not mandatory transfer or sale agreements. They were therefore: the NSW Tax Act provides that when an agreement to sell or transfer compulsory property is terminated, the contract is not taxable when the Senior Commissioner fills out certain issues. The law also provides that, when the tax has been paid, the Chief Commissioner must reassess the tax and refund it if a claim for reimbursement is made within a specified period of time. The High Court has identified a number of key principles for determining whether there is an innovation or a mission. The French CJ, Crennan, Keifel and Bell JJ explained the following principles: reasons such as the collapse of the machines, the closure of the establishment, the law of God and other reasons that are beyond the employer`s control.  When a professional apprentice is unable to complete the apprenticeship due to a strike or lockout or dismissal at a company where he or she is in training, and if he is likely to last longer, the employer follows the process of re-founding an apprentice`s training contract in accordance with clause (i) with the other employer covered by section 5 of the Act.