friendly bet, page-6

judicial review s111a previous cases Just to clarify exactly what the company are referring too, when they talk about judicial review - ie proceedings in the WA Supreme Court:-

"Judicial review is the power of a court to review a law or an official act of a government employee or agent for constitutionality or for the violation of basic principles of justice. In many jurisdictions, the court has the power to strike down that law, to overturn the executive act, or order a public official to act in a certain manner if it believes the law or act to be unconstitutional or to be contrary to law in a free and democratic society."
______________________________________________

I found four other cases in the WA Supreme Court previous case history, over more than 10 years, involving S111a Mining Act-public interest. (why not research it for yourself)

As we know from this Act, in each case, the claiment objected against a decision made by the Minister. The objection was made alone the same sort of grounds that CAZ have indicated they will appeal. In other words....previous applicants talked the same talk, as CAZ are doing now.

In all four cases, the decision was handed down in favour of the Minister. Initially at least, you may think, reason for concern for CAZ shareholders.....until a closer examination is done of the reason for the appeal.

Having read details of all these cases, the CAZ situation is far, far different to all four of these circumstances. One objection for over rule of the Miniters decision was to allow continued sand mining in Cockburn sand-another where two applications were made at the same time. It really was apparent, that legal people for these claiments really did think they had a good case - what does that say for the CAZ case. I think you can only get a feel for their case, by reading these previous case histories.