Only 19 ASX trading days to go ….., page-45

To me the KDR/MZN case has facets reflected in each of the precedent cases I list above but to my knowledge there is no perfect match unfortunately ... Also clear that the WA supreme court uses precedent cases from other states as well as the High Court of Australia... not just WA Supreme Court.

I particularly like these three cases as they are WA based, all surround disagreements on tenements, all are Supreme Court judgements, all involve questions marks over the validity of what constitutes a binding "Heads of Agreement" between mining entities... and some coincidentally involve the same Lawyer .

What I notice is all are subjective and Judge decisions seem to be pivotal on seemingly minor surrounding facts to the main written draft agreements ... and what one judge may call a contract another might not necessarily ...as its based on interpretation on each of cases unique technicalities. I don't think you can say at this point, or you could conclude, that KDR or MZN has a watertight case without knowing the contents of exchanged emails or between KDR and MZN or what was in the draft agreement (assuming there is one of course). The court will also want to look at minutes taken from directors/board meetings as well as correspondence between directors both internally and externally between both companies.

I think it clear that the WA mining act requires a written agreement to be in place and not just verbal evidence (with witnesses). Written, it seems in this instance, meaning physically signed document of some sort or a confirmation email between those with the authority to do so. Well that's my reading/opinion anyway.

Personally I think that it is highly likely (and I'm guessing here) that a draft "Heads of a Agreement" was most likely drawn up by MZN or their lawyers. How far the draft document progressed (ie, iterations) and how many mod's were made and agreed between the parties I have no idea ... how far such a document progressed, will I guess, be pivotal to the outcome to the case.

But my take is that the case appears to some degree to be unique in its circumstance and therefore unpredictable in its outcome.


PS: I don't think the fact that any lawyer having won or lost any prior case means that their next similar case will meet the same result as each case is inherently unique... Rather contrarily, I think that such a lawyer may now know the law more intimately than most others who have not tested it in court several times.

All of the above is in my personal opinion only I am not a lawyer .