Justice Hancock is sitting in the Supreme Court of Queensland, hearing a matter about whether terms of an employment contract, which required a professional athlete to make a public statement renouncingparticular religiousbeliefs, could be void. Assume this issue is governed by common law.

Her Honour is faced with the followingfourcases, all of which involved similar facts to her dispute:

1.Renouf v Gee, a 1973 decision of the Privy Council, on appeal from the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Privy Council in this case overturned the prior decision of the FullCourt, andfound instead that terms dealing with an employee's actions outside of the work environment could not be enforced, and therefore decided in favour of the employee.

2.Walters v Carne, a 1990 decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland. In this case, the court, by 2-1 majority (agreeing on the reasons), decided that their original approach inRenouf v Geeshould still be followed. They found in favour of the employer.

3.Lazarus v Cann, a 2000 decision of the Northern Territory Court of Appeal. The Court noted the Privy Council's decision inRenouf vGee, butheld that they were capable of departing from that decision, and unanimously found in favour of the employer.

4.O'Neill v Langer, a 2005 decision of the Full Court of the High Court of Australia. This matter was an appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal, which had followed the Privy Council's decision inRenouf v Gee. During the High Court hearing, one judge fell ill, and the remaining judges were split 3-3 on the decision: Sailor, Hohn, and Matterson JJ found for the employee; Bennett CJ, Johns and Walters JJ found for the employer.

Advising Hancock J which of those cases she should follow (include a full explanation of your reasons).