Heads we win ...tails you lose!, page-71

You have to remember though shane Sullivan was also representing land Appellants. Even straight after the CoA decision, one of the first quotes attributed to Sullivan the the main winners of the CoA was his Land Appellants.

Also I am not to sure about SMM tenements, unless there is some other court judgement regarding these other SMM tenements then I am not sure about any loss they will receive. Again if SMM tenements are also registered land well then they are going to fall under the Immediate Indefeasibility defence and as such its going to be pretty hard to make its way to the CoA to prove some gross mismanagement on the part of the SIG (as such was in our case).

I do not want to comment to much on any implications to SMM as I have not read up on them regarding anything else.

The CoA didn't really set any huge presidents regarding land other then the registration process itself and to rule that when any land is registered then it needs to be done in strict compliance to Part V Div 1 of the Land titles act.

There ruling on the SMM Prospect Licence is something else entirely (as it was a sepearte order of the CoA judgment) there they simply applied the Law under the Mines and Minerals Act which states that the Minister and the Board (concerned with Mines etc) must not accept any application for a Prospecting Licence by anyone who already holds 3 or more PL. So the CoA simple said that SMM should never have applied for a PL and that the minister was obliged to discard there application even for the tender process.