Cheers MD - Yes that's the nub of the dispute yet to be...

Cheers MD - Yes that's the nub of the dispute yet to be determined in court. What was known. What should have been disclosed prior to AGS signing the variation.

After re-reading Justice Mansfield's comprehensive background to the case in his 26/3/12 orders I've moved away from attributing any slackness on our part in signing the original JVA. All around the Paralana Plains JVs were signed by owners of abutting tenements - such as Giralia and Paladin, No doubt these were all pretty standard and transparent exploration type, earn-in agreements.

Let's hope that we can prove that HG/Q did have foreknowledge (that should have been disclosed) before requesting the variation.

Justice Mansfield describes the alleged non disclosure:

""Alliance alleges that on 5 August 2004, when it agreed to the proposed extension of Quasar’s “earn-in” period, it did so unaware that Quasar had caused to be carried out ground-based surveys in the area of the Paralana Plains, and that the results of those surveys and other information possessed by Quasar had been available to Quasar but not disclosed to Alliance when it agreed on 5 August 2004 to extend the “earn-in” period.

Alliance also contends that, before 5 August 2004, Quasar had formulated a proposal for an extensive drilling program to be undertaken on Paralana Plains for which it had identified the location of some 18 drill holes. However, it is alleged, neither the formulation of this proposal nor the preparatory work which had been undertaken was disclosed to Alliance by 5 August 2004."' (end of copy)

I'm thinking that even without unequivocal evidence but using the "reasonable man" argument the court might well agree that ML and D conduct did occur when Q sought to extend the original JVA without first disclosing to AGS information it had to hand