My take is... The order was The Farm-Out Agreement entered into...

My take is...

The order was

	Column 1
0	The Farm-Out Agreement entered into on 11 September 2015 should be specifically performed.

which means the deal goes ahead.

However, both parties requested this:

​

[4] In its Claim filed on 3 February 2016, the plaintiff, Armour, sought the following substantive relief:
1. A declaration that the Farm-Out Agreement should be carried into execution and specifically performed;
2. Specific performance of the Farm-Out Agreement;
3. Alternatively, a declaration that the plaintiff has used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the condition in clause 2.1(e) of the Farm-Out Agreement was satisfied as expeditiously as possible and before the cut off date; and
4. Alternatively, a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to terminate the Farm-Out Agreement.
[5] In its Defence and Counterclaim filed on 15 February 2016, the defendant, AEPG, also sought specific performance of the Farm-Out Agreement and a number of declarations including a declaration that Armour is not entitled to terminate or to seek to terminate the Farm-Out Agreement. By its Amended Defence and Counterclaim filed on 4 March 2016, AEGP also claimed further declarations and orders which were not pursued at trial.

However, after having a more detailed review of the judgment, it appears AEGP were trying to argue the native title requirements of the deed were ambiguous and that is why they failed to complete the deal, but the Court disagreed and ordered the deal to proceed. Therefore, costs should be awarded to Armour. It obviously remains to be seen whether AEGP now complete or possible even fold.