Ann: NSW Government decides not to provide evidence, page-14

imho, the interesting stuff is not what is said, but what is not said.
it appears to me that MEL is pursuing two avenues:
- restitution of the drilling approval
- damages/compensation

and I think these two avenues are not mutually exclusive.

either avenue would be unpalatable for the NSW govt.
because it is not their money (ie its our money), the NSW Govt would probably prefer to fight a battle in $ terms, rather than confront the prospect of battling the ferels on the NC.

So I was trying to understand what the implications of the MEL announcement mean.
I am no lawyer, so am floundering.

But several things stick out.
1. "..The decision not to submit any witness statements justifying the suspension makes it impossible for the decision-makers to be cross-examined...."
so to me that is saying the NSW Govt either does not have any evidence/documents to support a valid reason to withdraw the licence, or the evidence/docs they do have, will not support the Govts defence.
Also, importantly, those who execute the witness statements will need to be cross-examined on that evidence, and will be reluctant to do so. A public servant of say the OCSG would not be happy to be grilled under oath.
So presumably the Govt has no "decision-makers" willing to take the stand.

2. "..By resisting the production of documentary evidence, Government decision-making lacks transparency....."
Because if the Govt does not produce documents, then it cannot be cross-examined on them, it does not have to produce witnesses to sign affidavits verifying those documents, and no accountability for those decisions.
No documents, then MEL has nothing to attack, and Govt has less to defend.

3. "..As a result, Metgasco will explore a range of other options to have the documents produced.”
I am thinking that this would include MEL having to subpoena the documents.
Once it gets the docs, I would think it could subpoena the authors and recipients of those docs?

4. "It wishes to work cooperatively with the Government to resolve the current dispute..."
MEL keeps saying this, in spite of the Govt's intransigence.
so it sounds like MEL wants to settle in some form - licence or damages. carrot and stick approach.

5. "Metgasco has invested approximately $120 million.."
so MEL setting out just how much "damages" are at stake here.

What I don't understand, is what happens now?
I think the first leg is for MEL to get a judgement stating Licence withdrawal was unlawful, or unfair or whatever, then that would provide the basis for MEL to launch a claim for financial damage.

So if the Govt lodges no evidence, then MEL proceeds to present their case and evidence in court, the Govt argues against that but will not have any evidence to show that they abided by their obligations as required by the various bits of legislation?
So they would need to rely on technical arguments?

any views?