Pacific. He found that the objective of Part 6A is to provide protection to specified categories of employees. It addresses the inequality of power in an employment relationship by providing continuity of employment to vulnerable employees. As Justice Woolford stated, the object "is not to benefit the old employer ... by relieving the old employer of its liability to pay its employees for accrued leave entitlements up to the date of transfer or to ameliorate its financial situation following the loss of a contract". His Honour stated that if Parliament had intended to take away the new employer's right to be reimbursed by the old employer for the sums paid in respect of employment entitlements they had accrued while still employees of the old employer, then it would have inserted an express provision into the legislation to this effect. The Court also completely rejected Pacific's argument that LSG should have built the cost of these entitlements into its tender for the Singapore Airlines contract. As Justice Woolford said, at the time LSG tendered for the Singapore Airlines contract, it could not have known how many employees working at Pacific would elect to transfer, the rates of pay of those employees, and the leave entitlements of those employees. Pacific would not provide this information to a competitor until after Singapore Airlines made a decision. As a result, LSG could not possibly have built in any meaningful estimate into its own tender. On that topic, the Court noted that, if Pacific had