The article from "The Adelaide Businees Monthly" reads as...

The article from "The Adelaide Businees Monthly" reads as follows:-

For the record

An argument about recording meetings has reached the Supreme Court in a sign of how relations between the joint venture partners of Four Mile uranium have soured. The uranium mine in SA's far north is being developed by Alliance Resources and Quasar Resources but Supreme Court documents show the two parties are no longer meeting. The breakdown in relations appears to have derailed the $110 million mine, which was initially earmarked for production in January 2010.
Alliance, through it's subsidary Alliance Craton, claims Quasar is forbidding it from recording meetings and its and its accusing the private Company of acting unilaterally
on mine development issues.
Alliance has announced delays to the mine until "April 2010 or beyond" due to Quasar's inability to begin on-site construction at Four Mile and a delay in the granting of a mining lease pending registration of the native title Mining agreement. The announcement coincided affiliate declaring it would go ahead with a new mine at Beverly North.

Alliance General Manager Stephen Johnston is his affidavit accompanying the court claim says Quasar is progressing the mine without Alliance's input.
The main thrust of the legal dispute, however, Quasar can forbid Alliance from recording meetings. The pretty nature of the dispute indicates deeper issues at play, which is supported by legal counsel for the two parties. "This particular issue is part of some wider issues between the parties" Mark Hoffman, QC for Quasar told the court.
Alliance counsel agrees. It is regarded by the state as a significant development and there are issues between the parties which are holding up the progress of the joint venture" Dick Whitington QC subbmitted.
The recording issue was raised last Novemeber, when Quasar requested Alliance stop recording. The issue came to a head at an April meeting when Heathgate chairman Neal Blue put a vote whether Alliance should be allowed to record proceedings, after a resolution forbid it, the meeting was adjourned.

"Representatives of Alliance indicated that, in its view, in putting the matter to a vote the chairman had acted unfairly and unreasonably" the plaintiff's submission reads. Before a subsequent meeting, Alliance asked advance permission to record proceedings, to which Quasar allegedy responded " At certain point Quasar will have no choice except to transact such business without Alliance presence if Alliance continues to refuse to attend meetings"
Sarah Martin

Sorry about the spelling errors I typed this in a hurry.