murchison ignoring court case, page-7

and also outrigger,
this case will be argued on the principles of equity.

How on earth could one submit that chm, if it happened to win, could in all conscience claim a benefit from the development of jack hills. There has been a huge amount of capital, both financial and intellectual, invested in the development of JH. CHM have contributed nil to that.

There is no chance of chm receiving any benefit from the work done in the development of the mine nor in the sale of the ore.

Further, it should be noted chm would have no rights to claim benefits that arise from windfall gains such as ore price increases.

If chm wins then the benefit would be based on what we may loosley describe as the unimproved capital value ie with the overburden still in place. AND THE UNIMPROVED CAPITAL VALUE IS THE VALUE AT THE TIME THEY MADE THE ALLEGED PAYMENTS PLUS INTEREST.

Sorry outrigger your dreaming if you think chm will get the benefit of other peoples work or world changes in ore prices - that would indeed be inequitable.

But all this is really academic as this case is unlikely to be argued due to the uncertain financial status of the plaintiff and the lack of substantive evidence to prove the case to the requisite standard. Statements of claim are not evidence they are nothing more than claims that must be proved with solid evidence.

Anyhow we will more than likely spend the next 4-5 years toing and froing about this matter. And by that time chm shares will make useful wall paper.