appeals case, page-90

spruik - yes, the justice mansfield reference was to orders made by him last year. Yesterdays orders (the appeal) were made in Sydney by judges North, Cowdroy and Katzmann

Chicka, Frankie and Moseley - yes, your points are taken. They make legal and economic sense as well as common sense, though my own subjective feeling is that it is we who have been prolonging the process - and frustrating HG/Q at every turn - from the very first committee meetings to the actions taken and the ensuing appeal.

I'm not sure how forward contracts work and whether or not pressure has been, or could be, exerted by other parties to get a solution to the impasse - but I get a sense that Beverley needs access to the B4M resource and that this could be the catalyst for us reaching a resolution (without the warring parties having to work together)... This would be in line with J's and mose's belief in the "buy out" scenario.

Just my thoughts as we now look ahead to an amended statement of claim and to the next directions hearing in April ..

A day, a month can be a long time in the market (as well as politics)