Ann: WA Court Decision on Billabong Gold Matter Received, page-22

Worry so me?
I had to enter HC as wanted no more words & to ex P re $$ my concerns from Gold ie $ & heart.
Injunction relief is in favor of plaintiff? wtf? Are the legal and goldies now owned by $$$ & number of wigs?
What seems a complete sham that has repercussions across all Australia, Goldies, legal & stock forums.
Injunction relief is not limited to % of land asset as can be written with relief from other made redress full reliefs.
Those other reliefs are asked of the plaintiff to write as from envisaged from a previous SAME contract that plaintiff assumed did not for fill?
So based on before being wronged ??? now given opportunity to use to wrong a gain +++??? = our owned legal system.???
VAN was with SAME offer and was at the table??? so now what COSTS + relief to favor??? 3 wigs + 1 $$$? so no GO? VAN GO GONE???
So the a greed sought by plaintiff will be unacceptable for not only VAN co, holders but = goldies and all holders & Australians.
Selling out for legally owned with $$$ might being right representaion??? regardless of pleadings or facts and bias used precedents, deeming a new age of using legal manipulation and could it be seen as corrupting with legal gain of poorer unrepresented with 3 wigs Australians??? may be seen as unlawful and may need appealing to find re all justice.
There are 3 wigs demanding but there are more in Goldies and millions of Australians holders all with public interest not to be "belittled" by being OWNED and as our wrongful needing appealing in the "caught system"..
Ozzie Damages & Costings Precedent ??? =