give it a rest, please, page-15

Shelock,
Let me repeat citing what you have written citing yourself:
"One of the news reports stated that the company and the government were opposing the granting of an interim injunction, but I am uncertain as to whether the government is a party to the review cases. It is only natural that the government would wish to be a party as it was the ultimate decision maker who gave approval of the TOL."

From this paragraph it is clear that you don't understand the legal situation here at all. As I have written before, the government is the primary defendant in this case (you can call it respondent if you want) and not Lynas. The reason is because this is a SMSL appeal asking to revoke the minister's decision in June in rejecting the appeal of the residents asking to cancel the TOL. If the appeal is against the minister's decision, the government is the primary defendant. Lynas plays here only a secondary role.

It is clear from your statement cited above that you don't understand the legal case here. This is an appeal of SMSL against the government previous decision. So it is the government's duty to respond to it not Lynas. Lynas participates in this case only as a party that has strong interest in the outcome which could cause a lot of damage to Lynas.

I hope that now you understand what it is all about.
Perhaps we should ask resouced or rastus2 or someone else with legal background to explain it better to you.

















It is clear from your statement cited above that you don't understand the legal case here. This is an appeal of SMSL against the government previous decision. So it is the government's duty to respond to it not Lynas. Lynas participates in this case only as a party that has strong interest in the outcome which could cause a lot of damage to Lynas.

I hope that now you understand what it is all about.
Perhaps we should ask resouced or someone else with legal background to explain it better to you.