SOUTHERN CROSS PAYMENTS LTD (ASX:SP1) - Ann: Demerger Complete - EU/UK/US Subsidiaries, 57469597, page-479 - HotCopper | ASX Share Prices, Stock Market & Share Trading Forum

Originally posted by naomhan: ↑

That's taking the judgment out of context. I know JK did it too, but that doesn't make it right. "Serious question" is a legal term, and doesn't mean "the judge had concerns". It refers to the prima facie case. [Direct quotes from the judgement are italicised and bolded to separate them from my comments].

4 To show that there is a serious question to be tried, ISX must make out a prima facie case ... A “prima facie case” does not mean that ISX must show that it is more probable than not that it will succeed at trial. In other words, establish that there is actually a question to be tried in the future. ISX showed this, so the trial goes ahead, as there remains a serious question to be tried. That's why the next few words of that original quote weren't surprising...

37 I accept that the evidence before the Court shows a serious question to be tried in respect of the accuracy of particular findings made by ASX as detailed in its statement of reasons. ASX did not contend to the contrary.
ASX didn't contend to the contrary, because that's what the trial is for. This is also confirmed in paragraph 39 of the judgement, where the judge said:
The Court does not undertake merits review of the reasons but can only review the reasons for legal error.
That is, Justice Davies didn't bother examining the validity of the SOR - she just examined whether there was a legal error in the publishing. She determined that there was not a serious question to be tried around whether ASX held their opinion honestly and in good faith, and there was not a serious question to be tried on the claim of breach of duty. So those two aspects stop there.

I've endeavoured to keep all quotes in context. I could've taken other parts further out of context. The below quote from the Justice could easily be trimmed down to misrepresent things, just as the "serious question" was.

no submission was made that the statement of reasons does not disclose an intelligent and justifiable or defensible basis for the views expressed by ASX and the action that it proposes to take in publishing the reasons.

Expand

Nah, I'm not taking the judgement out of context. Your quotes are irrelevant to my post to Joe.

It's not a matter of whether ASX's findings were accurate and ISX wrong or vice versa. It's who determines what's right? That's definitely not ASX.

My quote from the judgement supports that the 'findings' needed to be examined closely by a competent authority but until that was done, ASX needn't have released them. So if a competent authority determines they were wrong, wouldn't ASX have misled the market, which was ISX's argument?

ASX could have maintained an unbiased stance by either publishing both the SOR and ISX's response, considering the court ruled in their favour, or published nothing. But they did neither.