Court summary - can someone provide, page-414

Terrific detail from @LiveEagle7 @Freehold @Mainy66 and @aussieman.

A couple of points not mentioned that to my mind suggest Bennett was struggling.

1) Donaldson had previously argued that the purported agreement was meaningless because it contained terms that were not defined, in particular he harped on about the term "pegmatitic materials" being meaningless. Bennett today tried to tender a document with a definition of pegmatitic materials (I think it was a US Geological Survey document). Donaldson objected. Bennett argued it was no different to the accepted practice of using a dictionary to determine the meaning of a word.  But Donaldson said it related to specialised technical knowledge and amounted to introducing expert testimony. The judge refused to accept the document.

2) Donaldson had earlier submitted an academic paper which analysed previous decisions around some relevant case law (possibly Masters and Cameron, I'm not sure now). Bennett today rubbished that paper by stating that the author was not even an academic, and the source was not even a Tier 1 institution, or even a Tier 2 institution.

The institution in question is the The University of Notre Dame Australia, the private Catholic run uni in Fremantle. My understanding is that the academic paper tendered by Donaldson was taken from its journal "The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review".

Now it seems that Bennett might have blasted himself in the foot with this strong criticism because Bennett himself revealed in his preamble to this submission that he was aware that Justice Martin himself was associated with this publication. It turns out that Justice Martin is on the editorial board and is a journal patron !!!