Don't say later that you did not forecast an injunction.But he...

Don't say later that you did not forecast an injunction.

But he can say that tototy because he did *NOT* forecast an injunction. I have to believe you understand the English language. He has stated what the options are from what he sees. He has not committed to any of the options, but you have.

In fact if you read what he says, he indicates that the fourth is important for X. Never does he weigh the odds and make a forecast that I can see.

"My view (for what it is worth) is that this court date on 4 October is significant because it could hold everything up until the reviews are heard and determined (i.e. the injunction is in place until hearing)."

So your entire assertion is false and a strawman. Strawmen are usually created by people who cannot defeat their opponent's argument. If you read what he says it is in our best interest to get to the court for judgment on the merits ASAP. If we introduce a delay our concentrate may be sitting in a boat anchored offshore. This might be the reason for no objection. I don't know.

It does not appear that either one of you are ignorant of the law. He has a different opinion than you, but he has supported it.

For what it is worth, both resourced and I thought the decision would go in our favor and expressed it some time ago with our reasoning. I think that is what you are basing your opinion on.