Ann: Half Year Financial Report 31 March 2019, page-15

I perused another Aust Mining forum site and post by a 666.
666 posted to that site very informative official letters issued by 2 x SI law firms on behalf of their clients and served on Axiom KB. The contents and intent of these letters was to advise Axiom KB and their nominees that their Ni prospecting applications over the SI tenements known as D18, D19 & D22 contained the true names of the customary owners of those lands. However the writer of the legal notice to AXIOM states that the writer represents those landowners and that they (the customary landowners) had not given their consent to Axiom KB to include either them or their names in Axiom’s Surface Access Agreement & prospecting application over their land & tenements. The legal firm on behalf of their clients, instructed Axiom to immediately excise D18, D19 & D22 from Axiom’s prospecting application or face the legal consequences. This was notice was dated 5th December 2018.
Another seperate notice from a seperate SI legal firm made similar claims on behalf of their clients. The legal firm claimed that their clients names were included in an offical prospecting application’s SAA lodges by Axiom Nickel Mining over tenements D21 & D22. The legal firm claims their clients neither gave their permission to Axiom Nickel Mining to use their names in the SAA document nor signed alongside their names, even though someone had signed their! This letter was dated 7th December 2018 and issued on or about that date to AXIOM KB and included Axiom Nickel Mining within the notice.
This was back in December 2018.
Clearly AVQ’s SI PL applications over tenements D18, D19, D21 & D22 are at worst invalid as the law firms claim. If not then they are in dispute and there can not be any progress by the SI Govt favourable to AVQ in securing those PL’s.
Why has there has been no official notice or update from AVQ to the shareholders re this situation. The various AVQ reports released in 2019 by RM suggest these applications are proceeding to approval !
Or did I miss the AVQ notices that these applications are under contention and legal challenge by the SI customary landowners? If that is the case then this information is not new to the HC readers.