And now a reassuring word from CEO Ryan Mount., page-176

Gus,

I suspect that the issue with letting "the majority of landowners get on with it" ...is fine as long a this doesn't leave some of the landowners disenfranchised. The important aspect that has clearly been missing is that the process of defining which landholders who are eligible to receive official recognition as traditional landholders has not been defined. Without defining this, there is no point allowing a majority to make decision.

To make it clearer ...if there are 20 landholders ...there is no point allowing 11 to make a decision, form a company and receive royalties ...just because they are a majority (while the other 9 receive Jack). However if the 20 are formally registered to proportionally receive benefits, then it is appropriate that a structure be organised to resolve any dissagreements so that an impasse can be solved and progress made. From memory, I believe the land court is correct forum to resolve these matters -it isn't appeals court's job to resolve these in a haphazard fashion, butrather the appeals court is the correct forum to ensure that this process is followed.

Ultimately, if this process is enabled effectively, it reduces sovereign risk, by eliminating a potential source of inequity, unfairness, corruption and nepotism.

In this way it isn't a necessity to have 100% on board (but of course it saves lots of hassle and a trip to the land court)

These things are separate issues. I just hope we are not looking at a land court argument, but even if we were -it's not a high court argument. This is why I believe AVQ and Axiom KB are currently in an infinitely better position than they were before the appeal result (just that we don't fully realise it yet).

No doubt plenty of lawyers from all persuasions following HC can pull it apart ...but this is how I see it.


Cheers,

SJB

All MHO