On Litigant's Point 2, the $51 million matter, I recall reading the ruling, but I now cannot find it – it may have been a cut-and-paste, or a link, supplied via an HC post. Anyhow, I gained the impression that disallowing the $51 million was a matter of procedure, rather than being a rejection of NWH's entitlement to be paid $51m for work performed – e.g., work before the adjudicator, or whomever, that formed part of a separate legal matter because it had been claimed in an earlier progress payment to the one under consideration.
If somebody could point me to where I might reread that document, I would be grateful. Or better still, if a poster like Litigant could comment on the point, if he can find it. English should rid itself of gender-specific pronouns -- perhaps come up with a portmanteau word made up of S H E I T.
NWH Price at posting:
13.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)