Ann: Claim against BRL, page-64

On one of the sessions I was at (day 3 I think) L&M put a reasonable effort into attempting to establish that shipping meant something to the effect of "transportation by any means to an offsite location whether it is local or offshore" - my quotation marks - I didn't see BRLs response/argument. L&Ms argument basically hinged on "shipping" being a common term in the mining industry meaning "transport...". So while the contract is very loose in that respect - it's quite pedantic in other areas, and I wonder if the judge will allow one party to gain on both counts. What seems obvious to me is that BRL need to get on with renewing the permit that expires in 2022 - even if they're forced into paying L&M, they'll recoup the payments in spades. It'll also add a host of high paying jobs to the coast, and provide significant benefits for the local economy. Currently the only parties benefitting are the legal firms and their expert witnesses. I missed the vast majority of the case so I dont have any view on which party may've presented a stronger case. However I'm very pleased to have sat in on the few hours I did as I know so much more about the company, the processes involved in getting a new mine up and running, the costs, and mining itself. It's been an expensive exercise for the SP, but extremely valuable for me.