Share
1,902 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 938
clock Created with Sketch.
16/09/14
11:47
Share
Originally posted by mboose
↑
Who knows what the private thoughts are that exist with the parties to this matter.
We know that SMM can afford to challenge or defend ALL appeal opportunities available within the SI legal system.
SMMS (the claimant in this matter) by its name I suggest, is a SI incorporated company and possibly has to be to satisfy SI mining legislation. This stipulation is normal compliance in most countries, as it provides local opportunity to recreate gov't revenue and tax streams. Axiom KB a SI inc co I suggest based on previous comments here . Whether their shareholders are black or white, Asain or European is irrelevant, and any suggestion that these features prohibit a co from pursuing their legal rights is probably both totally wrong and discriminatory. It is another case of incorrect and misleading information being posted here as fact by some. I see the poster (Kershard I think) has at their own request removed the post until the facts are known, which is good to see. Pity that course was not pursued prior to the posting, as other readers rely and believe what their read here.
Will SMM or Axiom run appeals to the SI high court and UK privy council, I suspect yes in both camps.
Will they, only after 24th we will know the court's decision and then wait as the parties move.
Ryphil the legal rights of a party to follow a course or action is governed by their financial ability to fight or their corporate decision/belief to do so. Governments do not intervene, well not publicly/openly at least. Japan is such a big aid donor to SI. As Is Australia though on a significantly lessor scale I well imagine.
Whether SMM, Axiom or any party to the matter is suing the government is not relevant to future decisions. If that were so Palmer could not operate anywhere due to his litigation history. Nor are the interests of the people, they are always left to wait. Companys do as they believe is in their best commercial interest, as exercised by both Axiom and SMM to date.
Till the court rules, everything here is no more than wishful thinking, conjecture or personal speculation.
That does not mean we remain blind to what are real and possible future directions. Especially if it involves further litigation to such levels as the SI Appeals High Court then to the Privy Council in the UK. This could continue litigating for many, many years if the end prize is worth it imo.
One of my major concerns has always been the massively deep pockets of SMM.
Expand
Mboose
You’re suggesting that SMM can and will appeal.
On what grounds do you believe SMM can appeal ???
Bad legal advice from Sol-Law cannot be a reason for appeal ??? or is that what you believe ???
What issues have not been heard by Commissioner Brown that leave the case open to appeal ???
Don’t forget that SMM have had one year to explain their case.
One cannot appeal to the Appeals Court simply because you don’t like the Judge’s decision.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but also show me some legal precedence to support your case.