Yeah but it doesn't answer the original proposition. How does...

Yeah but it doesn't answer the original proposition. How does one litigate this while in the review. The options as i see it;

1. The group funding the litigation would have to either sue the government for mis-reviewing the application - but approval would need to be in place

2. She sues the company for having a licence which is still active. This defies logic

3. She sues the government on the act. High Court action which would place every miner in the other corner as it would involve all mining approvals

4. She could litigate for an injunction on a decision but that would have a threshold of evidence to provide (not just, we arent happy), it would require evidence of malpractice on behalf of either BPH or the governing body (yet to see anything to support this)

In any event, all the above options are very time-consuming with exception of getting an injunction, which it doesn't appear to be any evidence to support.

There isn't a genuine path of litigation at this stage.

So to the point, she is going to stand on a beach with a few hippies singing kumbaya. Not exactly a shocking announcement.

That my simple review of it.