Ann: Resources & Reserves, and Guidance Update (ex-KCGM), page-29

Thanks for the link.

I too have quickly read the interlocutory judgement that you posted and I think you are confusing the difference between the case for the urgent interlocutory relief sought and the strength of a case for breach of contract. The judge is basically saying that the case for breach of contract on three of the pleadings isn't strong enough to have warranted 3 of the 4 urgent relief orders sought (the fourth was consented to, ie TBR/RND's can store their stockpiled ore on their/the EKJV tenements) being granted back in Jan. That we already know.

The judge also said this.

"I am, of course, not now delivering any concluded interpretation towards the true meaning of the OTA from a final perspective. I also bear in mind that any interpretive exercise must take account of not only of the relevant text at issue but, as well, of the surrounding commercial context and of the (objectively assessed) purpose and objects of an agreement."

With regard to one of the main reasons for denying the first relief order sought, ie that a subsequent 3 month mill availability notice somehow invalidates/trumps a previous notice, that seems like a purely mechanist reading of the OTA in my opinion (probably good enough to knock back an application for interlocutory relief, but is it good enough to knock back a case for breach of contract?). The judge has left the door open for the breach of contract case by saying "I also bear in mind that any interpretive exercise must take account of not only of the relevant text at issue but, as well, of the surrounding commercial context and of the (objectively assessed) purpose and objects of an agreement."

What else could be the purpose of these notices but to allow TBR/RND to make provision for the processing of their ore in the future? The relevant clause in the OTA says

4.1 During the term of this Agreement, the EKJV Parties will advice Kanowna [ie, the second defendant] on a rolling quarterly basis of the projected EKJV Ore that is expected to be available to be sent to the Mill for processing (tonnage and source of ore). The report will provide these details for the upcoming quarter, as well as an estimate for the succeeding three quarters.

Imagine you were relying on a notice that said you could process so much ore for the next four quarters and then the next quarter ticks around and those estimates are slashed. What was the purpose of this clause in the agreement but to protect TBR/RND's ability to make an advanced plan for milling their ore, ie to protect TBR/RND's interests. The mechanist interpretation of the reading of the contract in my opinion is not justice. This isn't over either. We shall see and now it can only come down to damages.Esh