check this out, page-45

I strongly disagree with Chris' assessment relating to Section 73. Section 73 appears to deal with amending an EPL for another mineral, conditional on the meeting al other requirements, rather than applying for another EPL. It is a book keeping section so that miners and the government can easily adjust their claims without needing to re-apply.

The proceedings most likely apply to Section 69 and EuroTravelLover points out. However the lawyers for BMN have read the Act thoroughly (you'd be surprised) and take due care in all these matters, but we are simply speculating because we don't have access to the paperwork which was supplied when the EPL submission was made.

Savannah want the approval of BMN's overlapping claim to be reviewed, and Section 69 is about the right of the Minister to grant or refuse an application so you would have to assume it is the relevant section.

It would be extremely distressing if BMN did not notify Savanna of their intentions in writing as directed by the Act - indeed it would be negligent. However we don't have any reason to think that this is the case. Section 69 is basically about crossing the 't's and dotting the 'i's. We can really only have trust that BMN has done this correctly because we have no way of finding out what has been done.

Mistakes do happen so there is some risk here, and surely one side has got their interpretation of the Act incorrect.

Finally, I'd just like to point out that while it would be nice if the case was thrown out & refused hearing, as long as Savanna can explain their case and the relevant issues as they relate to the Act then they will likely get a hearing. Courts don't throw complex cases out without considering them, and at the same time they don't consider them until their is a hearing. Unless the case is either absurd or completely baseless then it will likely go to court.