Ann: Judicial review update, page-4

No, it means that the government has been tardy in supplying documentation as promised. To me this is a very good thing as it implies a lack of cohesion of argument and/or defend-able basis for the decision. A well reasoned decision would have had a strong fact backed position as a foundation with a clear rationale as to the supporting documents and legislation used to make the decision. If that was the case it should have been presentable to the company on demand. It also would have been presented to the company before a decision was made. A legally defend-able decision cannot be made on impulse. We clearly have a situation where the government has been caught on the hop making an impulse decision without first presenting their position.

A review of the decision will be made by Wednesday, at which point we will know whether the suspension will be overturned. Metgasco are still reserving their right to take the government to the cleaners through the courts - regardless of the outcome of the government's decision.

I am furious at what the government has done, but the irony of the situation isn't lost on me. A true case of the pot calling the kettle black in regard to genuine consultation.

The stakes are high, but the more I look at what I know to be the facts, the more confident I become. A part of me hopes that this does go to court, even if just for damages, so that a precedent is set.