give it a rest, please, page-44

Dear Totoy,

Whether the current situation is by reason of a stay on the order of the minister or an injunction is moot. What is the practical difference? None.

Where do you get support for your claim that Lynas is only prevented from taking new steps in regards to the plant? Why do you limit the order to this?

In an application, you cannot rely on the argument that other courts has dismissed applications so you should too. Each application is run on its own merits, not the merits of other applications in the proceeding. If is were the case they were relying on the same grounds the application would be tossed out, hence the inclusion of the review relating to the AELB not sanctioning the additional criteria for the operation of the plant.

Why do you keep talking of precedents? They are not precedents.

You have missed the point of my post. The point is that they don't have to determine the matter conclusively whether or not they will all die by reason of the plant. They simply have to show that there is a serious question to be tried and if they can satisfy a judicial officer that may all die until the ministers decision and the criticsim regarding the non approval are heard the status quo may well be maintained! I am not advocating a position strongly because I know that nothing is certain in the law. The whole point is that despite their claims being ultimately dismissed it is a possibility that the operation of the TOL will be held up.

You are the one asserting the opertaion of the TOL currently won't cause irreparable damage. I am not saying you are wrong, but your certainty in what you believe will be the outcome is misplaced. Who is to say that a judge won't be cautious to fully examine the claims of SMSL? But you Honour, look at the other applications, they failed there. Yes Mr. Totoy, but they were not based on the material I have in front of me, and I am not bound by any other application. I might be bound by decisions of higher courts which consider the law but this is essentially a factual argument and I consider that the nature of the criticisms I am dealing with to be a nature that the operatio of the TOL ought to be stayed until a proper hearing has been heard on the matter, and I so order.

Whack! Appeal the deicision of the judge to grant and interim injunction! So don't pretend you know the law. I know the Malaysian law is based on British law. I know Australian law is based on British law. I included a link to a Malaysian case which referred to British law. I am confident the principles are the same. If you tell me otherwise I will consider your view on the point.

As to your last point, the judge might point to public policy reasons for a refusal to order that SMSL give an undertaking as to damages. I just don't understand, on a legal footing why you talk so bullishly about 4 October. I am with everyone hoping that they are refused the injunction and that Lynas is granted leave to intervene in the proceeding. I think the SMSL campaign has been a politically motivated one but even accepting that, it doesn't overcome the fact that they are using every trick in the book to frustrate the start up of the plant. And with that comes a chance that they will get a sympathetic ear that causes the company delay and expense. I am saying nothing more than that. And considering I understand that a judge could well be sympathetic to maintaining the status quo, hence the earlier legal commentary on the matter, a bullish attitude is misplaced and unwarranted.

Kindly stop telling me what I am saying, and stop telling others what you think I am saying.