Ann: Half Yearly Results Presentation, page-123

Yes quite right without having read the JV document one is left just with assumptions.
However in the context that I was referring to, which was RFTQ inference that because BRL have a majority on the board they have a majority vote.
Now according to the auditors report this may well not be the case based on the joint venture agreement including...... "require unanimous approval of both parties including matters relating to the operational decisions and activities of BT Mining."

Don't you think it is odd that BRL are now in court spending millions trying to fight off a payment for what could be deemed as a good asset to have on the books.
Obviously they don't want this asset anymore and I think a big part of the reason is they know they will find it hard to gets Talleys approval for shared infrastructure.
I also think those going to see the closing statements in court on Monday will learn a lot about why BRL don't want to pay and less about who will win.

Personally I don't think it's a good situation for BRL going forward to have to need any unanimous decisions from a minority SH which could easily lead to a conflict of interest over infrastructure sharing nor is it very healthy to rely on too much goodwill in these instances.
I find it hard to believe if Talleys has a say in it that they would want BT mining to share infrastructure for BRL's 100% benefit.

Like I say much will be learnt about BRL intent in court on Monday.