EU Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) - Implications for Talga, page-6

"A trial period with regard to essential water issues despite the fact that surface watercourses covered by environmental quality standards are at risk."

From memory (and there's a risk there too), the lawyer mentioned that both the lower courts erred in judgement in allowing the trial period in relation to surface watercourses, damns and mine waste. So this will I guess be the error at law (rather than precedent) that the lawyer may be pursuing. The "technically expert" judge at the initial permit level cited water purification measures put in place by Talga as the mitigating factor that made the trial period possible. You'd think the onus would be on the lawyer to prove that wasn't enough.

Sort of like arguing against science or against the reversible exploration of science. It would be difficult. The error at law also has to be a significant one. The question may be, is it reasonable to allow a trial of waste water purification measures, or not?

@blondeaussie, I think they only upload decisions once a day, in batches, in the evening our time and not on the weekends.