• Pybar failed to properly perform its services with due care...

• Pybar failed to properly perform its services with due care and skill and in accordance with the contract and good industry practice;u
• Pybar failed to supply equipment and supplies of an acceptable standard, quality and specification;
• Pybar failed to provide adequate and properly qualified and trained labour;
• Pybar failed to progress services as contracted; and
• Pybar failed to apply a proper standard of skill necessary to competently perform services.

all of those basically say the same thing ...but I guess specific examples can be given the court for each point under the first one?
Eg:
-Failed to progress services etc :
In the webinar I think it was mentioned Pybar simply decided to wander off with the mining following little offshoots?
The contract - I imagine- specified a requirement to churn through the low grade ore asap.
- failed to provide skilled labour - also easily documented ...
-proper standards not being maintained ....should be self evident given that it took the next crew a month to mend the machinery..

All up they may well have a reasonable case.
For instance the expectation the vendors of the mine would not simply leave them in the lurch when they sold out so as to focus on whereve4 it was (Carapateena) was documented in media stories.
The fact they paid the equivalent of top dollar may well be partly based on the goodwill that Pybar would do the job throughly.
Good will has real value and I imagine the court would be sympathetic to that aspect .
Hmmm