Hi
I think 'the original vesting needs to be resolved', something I presume AVQ had no role in, as it would go back a while.
Therefore the AVQ access rights were achieved with the landowners at that particular time... it is now declared the original vesting (previous time) needs to be rectified.
The point AVQ are saying is that the same piece of land is in question, and they have done it before. (I think I am correct in this understanding). This humble understanding requires this rectification to take place (possible always would have had to) with whoever tries to mine at Kolosori.
I still question the appeal decision on this, despite other courts upholding the original vesting, including Judge Brown's trial, they felt it was needed, to go back so far. By doing so they enable indecision on every landowner issue, thus empowering SIG and its processes, rather then the independence of the landowners. Shame on them! I sold out after the court case, way too poor to take chances with my meagre savings!
Many on here are blaming the SIG and the landowners for intransigence, but the appeal court had Australian participation. I do wonder if it is just coincidence but nevertheless 'some' in power often have interests to prolong any development anywhere in the world... the courts had a chance to cut through this and provide local landowners 20% (historical amount) of profits.
Despite all who may or may not lose, I would again propose that all landowners will now lose out whatever.
It is in the interests of the people of Solomon's , shareholders and management that somehow Kolosori is pulled back from the brink and momentum is achieved. Despite the obvious dismay and critical nature of the commentary on here, there is only one game in town. Meanwhile the big monster just waits in the background for spoils.
Go Ryan, AVQ and Shareholders, best of luck...
Gus
Expand
