Justice Ian Kawaley will make a ruling to determine whether the Supreme Court should prevent a long awaited inquiry into a sexual complaint from a former employee of the Salvation Army.

Stephanie Burrows ? a former addiction councillor ? was abruptly fired in 1998 from her job at the Harbour Light drug rehabilitation programme run by the Army after bosses discovered she was having a relationship with one of her clients ? a direct contravention of the charity?s laws.

However, she subsequently filed a civil suit against the Army for wrongful dismissal, on the basis that another male councillor who had behaved similarly was only suspended for his indiscretion and was ultimately reinstated.

The claim was eventually settled out of court for a substantial sum.

However, Ms Burrows also lodged a separate complaint with the Human Rights Commission in the same year on the basis that she had been dismissed from her job only because she is a woman.

The HRC took close to 11 months to conduct its inquiry and ultimately concluded that Ms Burrows? claim was entirely justified.

However, the Army refused to accept the decision, and a Board of Inquiry chaired by defence lawyer Victoria Pearman, was supposed to have formed to adjudicate in the matter at the behest of the Ministry of Labour.

Four and a half years later, that Board still has not met to look into the issue and with the explanation for the delay far from clear, the Salvation Army is now arguing that their constitutional right to a fair trial has been prejudiced.

Closing arguments have made by Salvation Army lawyer John Cooper and Government lawyers Venous Telford and Melvin Douglas.

The outcome of the hearing will centre on whether the decision of the Minister of Labour to appoint a Board of Inquiry was in breach of the Salvation Army?s fundamental rights to a fair hearing.

And critically whether or not the hearing of the proposed Board of Inquiry is in breach of the Salvation Army?s right to a fair hearing with in a ?reasonable time period.?

During the hearing Mr. Cooper suggested that that former Harbour Light director Major David Goulding - is the ?key witness? in the whole dispute, who now has Alzheimer?s and is unable to give evidence.

Major Goulding was Ms Burrows? immediate boss and the man responsible for her dismissal.

But Ms Telford argued that Major Goulding is not as as important a witness as Mr. Cooper was suggesting and there were others who could provide just as adequate an account of exactly what transpired in 1998.

Ms Telford said the Board of Inquiry must be allowed to satisfy itself that there was truth to the allegations as to why Ms Burrows was fired and that the Supreme Court should not prevent this from taking place.