ASIC v ISX Hearing, page-2835

You have no idea what you are talking about. lol did you just make up the term "documentary evidence" to sounds like you do? haha. Are you talking about a document being tendered as opposed to a witness giving oral evidence? What are you trying to say? It does highlight though your misunderstanding when saying ASIC had only one witness in relation to 15% issue. You do realise that the ASIC investigator gave brief evidence and that a tonne of document exhibits were handed up and tendered through him? He was used as a vehicle to introduce that bundle of evidence. For example, the Martyn Jacobs research notes that relate to the 15% issue. They were introduced as part of that bundle and are evidence before His Honour. This is just but one small example. The transcripts don't tell the full story.

There was no need to show the performance shares were obtained for any improper purpose as you wrote. That was not what ASIC were pleading in their statement of claim. It really means nothing whether ASIC did or did not introduce evidence on that issue.

Yes, the burden of proof is with the plaintiff and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Well done! Though no inverted commas were required!

Bring on the judgement. I'll love discussing it with you on here when it has been published.