first on hotcopper have a punt, page-20

re: grant grant. Vodafone said last week that they would appeal the decision.

So far, the matter of quantum has not yet been heard. Of itself, the judgement is nearly 400 pages (Court script), and close to 268 pages (downloaded).

This matter is not over, by a long shot.

This, however, is how COMMUNICATIONS DAY REPORTED ON THE MATTER LAST FRIDAY (28 MARCH 2003):
------------------------------------------------------
Court finds Vodafone Pacific in breach of agreement
------------------------------------------------------
The NSW Supreme Court yesterday found that Vodafone Pacific, a Vodafone Australia subsidiary breached an agreement with service provider Mobile Innovations for setting a nil subscriber acquisition target over the course of a ten year contract.

In a court statement, Justice Clifford Einstein said the litigation concerned a range of disputes between the
two companies.

In February, Mobile Innovations alleged that Vodafone had breached its exclusive remote selling agreement, claiming that it failed to provide important business information for the five quarters leading up to
December 2002.

The two parties struck an agreement in 1998 in which it was agreed that Mobile Innovations would provide
customers to the operator. In its claim, Mobile Innovations alleged that a decision by Vodafone in early 2001 to control costs by budgeting for zero growth hampered its own growth, and was a breach of the original agreement. Vodafone said it would appeal the finding that it could not set a zero target for customer acquisition. However, the court yesterday agreed with Mobile Innovations.

”A critical issue involved whether or not Vodafone was contractually entitled to determine that the target level
for acquisition by Mobile Innovations of new subscribers for particular quarters was nil or to refuse to determine
any target level at all for particular quarters,” Justice Einstein said in his ruling. ”The court has held as a matter of construction of the ASP that Vodafone had no such entitlement and by its conduct in this regard breached fundamental obligations imposed upon Vodafone by the ASP,” he added.

The mobile operator said it was taking legal advice in relation to the judgment because it believes the Mobile
Innovations prospectus allowed it to set a zero target. It said there are now competing views as to the meaning of the contract and it expects to appeal the decision. However, it said the fiscal damage would be lower than expected.

”Vodafone is pleased that any damages awarded in Mobile Innovations’ favour will be substantially less than
the amount originally claimed,’’ it said in a statement.

”The damages are yet to be quantified.’’

Mobile Innovations has previously said it is seeking up to $90 million in damages over an agreement between the two companies.