thanks beany72 for the link to the wa supreme court and...

thanks beany72 for the link to the wa supreme court and judgement decision.
i note in para 91 the judge states much is still to unfold, but makes mention to patterson and his conduct. see extract below

2010] WASC 33

91 Also, whilst, as I have said, I am left with the impression that much of the story on both sides remains to be disclosed, at the point of weighing the balance of convenience, where the plaintiff bears the legal onus, the
absence, prima facie, of a more complete and a more readily and commercially comprehensible explanation of Mr Patterson's conduct, and (albeit to a lesser extent) Mr Jooste's conduct, has some significance. It makes it difficult to make any favourable assessment, even on a
preliminary basis, of the plaintiff's prospects of success, other than to say that its case is sufficiently arguable to warrant the preservation of the subject matter, ie the shares, pending a trial, having regard to the size of
the parcel of the shares, the thinness of the market and the interests of the plaintiff as a licensor of the technology. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot,
in my view, point to the apparent strength of its case, on the limited evidence in this interlocutory dispute, as justifying a restraint beyond the preservation of the shares. This factor, too, leaves the balance tilting in
favour of the first to fifth defendants.

wonder what sort of conduct the judge refers