point 39 and 40

if you want some optimism about HH Mansfields control of this case lets go back to point 39


39 In my view, the general thrust of the concerns of Alliance as set out in the preceding paragraph of these reasons is a legitimate one. By using the term “legitimate”, I do not intend to convey that it is a correct one. That is a matter which may ultimately need to be decided. However, I am satisfied that Alliance has reasonable cause to assert, and has asserted (albeit not as clearly as it may have), that Heathgate and Quasar had available to them in the period up to the date of extension of the lead-in option on 29 September 2004, information which may well have been relevant to the value of the Licence at that time. I am also satisfied that
- 12 -
such information may well have included information of the character set out in [16]-[20] above. I am further satisfied that such information was not conveyed to Alliance prior to 29 September 2009, and that it is reasonably arguable that the failure to do so amounted to a breach of duty on the part of Quasar as the then Joint Venturer with Alliance in relation to the exploration of the Tenement and that Heathgate was aware of those circumstances so that, if Quasar was in breach of its duty to Alliance, Heathgate was arguably complicit in that breach.