I wonder if you have a point about the drip feed payments. The...

I wonder if you have a point about the drip feed payments. The real problem is perhaps a badly written contract - what was the intent when using the word 'shipped' - the Judge should take the first meaning in the dictionary into account:
1. transport (goods or people) on a ship.
2. (of a product) be made available for purchase
But there is always uncertainty that one or more parties intended it to mean the second definition.  Given that, You are right to assume the judgment would be at worst (for Bathurst) be a step payment imposition - otherwise, surely that would be an unconscionable determination -- and easily appealed.

Or - - it could all be nothing about the court case and they've simply decided to do a capital return and special dividend just to be nice and say a big thank you to all the faithful small share holders. ...   .. nah.