Why is everyone so emotional?, page-67

Sorry to give you a lawyer's response here fib, but it depends.

It depends on what evidence my hypothetical client had to support it's claims and whether it had any evidence that contradicts the evidence presented by SPX lawyers. It depends on the type of evidence that was presented, such as whether it is a witness statement setting out the proposed oral testimony that a particular witness or witness intend to give at trial, or whether there is documentary evidence that objectively demonstrates that a particular thing occurred at a particular time/day etc.
For example, if my client had some emails that contradicted the denial by Adams and Bosio as to whether PW was discussed, then I would advise to continue. However, if there was nothing to objectively refute the denial by Adams and Bosio re discussions on PW, then I'd need to discuss with my client the inherent risks in a he said / she said argument and see whether there were any inherent credibility issues that could impact on the reliability of the proposed oral evidence of any of the potential witnesses to be able to make a value judgment as to whether to box on or not.

Likewise it depends on the type of evidence that my hypothetical client has, in particular whether it is oral evidence, documentary evidence, evidence to be given by uninterested parties (i.e. people not involved with any of the litigants), whether there are previous court decisions in relation to the credibility of any of my client's proposed witnesses.

Also, in this little vacuum, we haven't actually seen either VMC's SOC or SPX's defence, so we don't have any idea as to what material facts have been pleaded by either party or any of the particulars of those facts. What we do know in this little vacuum is that VMC's ASX announcements on this issue do not guarantee it will win and same goes for SPX at the moment.