Ann: Suspension Update, page-28

"Fact, TV2U applies to the court for orders - the court sets a hearing date.
Fact, the court controls the hearing calendar and they settled on 18 November 2016."

Then why did you tell everyone on the 1st of November that it would most likely be sorted in chambers that afternoon seeing as it was just a technicality? Why did you say that when you now argue that anyone knows that the court sets dates, often weeks out?

Then you say:

"This is simply staggering
...
(Bang head on wall)
There was no hearing of the application - it was adjourned - adjourned I say! Therefore, no evidence was presented. So how could it be considered insufficient?
How can this simple matter be so misrepresented or, so poorly understood?"

But in your response to lankyman you say:

"They are, as the announcement notes, compiling evidence to support their application.
"The adjournment was to allow the Company to provide the Court with further evidence."
It is far better to adjourn than present an ill prepared application. When they do turn up to the court they need to ensure that have covered every conceivable point. You do not make a case on poor evidence."

So now I'm confused because you argue on one hand that they needed further evidence and that was no big deal but when it suits your argument, you then say that there is nowhere that indicates there was insufficient evidence. You really are playing both sides of the fence here.