Purposive interpretation is VERY popular these days, across most jurisdictions but especially in courts with international reach...
FARJOY's take is nothing new at all: the literal construction WPL is relying on is that they bought a company, not an asset, and the JOA PE terms only mention assets. Whereas FAR is arguing that in this case you should go beneath the face of the terms to determine the intent, namely that it doesn't matter what you call the thing, it represents an asset that qualifies for PE.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
35.0¢ |
Change
0.000(0.00%) |
Mkt cap ! $32.34M | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| 0.0¢ | 0.0¢ | 0.0¢ | $0 | 0 |
Buyers (Bids)
| No. | Vol. | Price($) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1999 | 35.0¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
| Price($) | Vol. | No. |
|---|---|---|
| 38.0¢ | 6001 | 1 |
View Market Depth
| Last trade - 16.21pm 08/07/2025 (20 minute delay) ? |
| FAR (ASX) Chart |
Day chart unavailable