male with the same or substantially similar skills, responsibility and service performing the work". For completeness, the Judges also included a brief discussion of s 4 of the Act, which may influence an interpretation of s 3(1)(b). They concluded that it "raises more questions than it answers", and that it was of no practical assistance. Arguments made by TerraNova TerraNova made several arguments to establish that the Employment Court's interpretation of the Act was not what Parliament intended. These included the title of the Act, the use of the definite article in various sections, the phrase "under any instrument" in s 3(1) of the Act, the exception in s 2(2) of the Act, and the singular nature of the inquiry based on s 2A of the Act. The Court disagreed with all of these points. However, it was persuaded by TerraNova's final two arguments regarding the mandatory and exhaustive nature of the s 3(1)(b) criteria (although they did not agree that the Employment Court had attempted to insert an additional criterion), and that the comparator was a hypothetical male, not an actual or real male. Workability, the absence of guidelines and s 9 A "key plank of TerraNova's argument" was the principle that the Court should select the interpretation that is most "practical and sensible". TerraNova claimed that individual employers should not have to "shoulder the burden of rectifying society-wide structural discrimination" or "undertake assessments that are simply beyond their expertise and resources". They argued that Parliament would have been clearer if it intended to impose such a significant burden on employers, and that the absence of guidelines was indicative of a lack of intention. TerraNova also relied heavily on s 9, which provides that the court "shall have power from time to time … to state … the general principles to be observed for the implementation of equal pay". The Court felt, however, that s 9 was very open-ended. They considered its legislative history, which did not serve to clarify the section's meaning, and consequently found that "it is simply not possible to read the [Equal Pay Act] as a carefully drafted and well thought-out piece of legislation". The Court agreed with TerraNova that there were some workability concerns, however they disagreed that a lack of guidelines was demonstrative of Parliament's lack of intention to impose such a burden on employers. They agreed with the Union and the Human