appeals case, page-76

An affidavit from PM would be a powerful argument for our case. But they are voluntary statements. I noticed that Justice Mansfield said almost a year ago in the court orders of March 26th:

"there is much to be said for cases going to trial on the basis of affidavits rather than pleadings."

After a good night's sleep I'm now thinking more positively - that perhaps we do have a good case to prove that deception and misrepresentation occurred between August 2002 (the original JVA) and Sept 2004 when both parties agreed to the variation that led to us transferring 75% to Q.

Have an intuitive feeling that powerful other parties are anxious for this to reach its denouement and that HG/Q may need a speedy outcome in order to fulfil contracts that must attract penalties if not met.