Share
clock Created with Sketch.
04/04/16
15:20
Share
Originally posted by Tez1985
↑
Hi Jasmac,
Going to pull you up on a couple of technicalities there in your post.
Firstly, You said "Neither SMM nor AVQ nor the SL gov expected....", Though I agree that SMM were hoping for a better outcome I do believe that there Lawyer Sullivan QC knew very well the possibility of the land reverting back to Customary Land, as I posted in my thread Lilly QC v's Sullivan QC, Sullivan is a specialist in Customary Law.
Second, (and this ties in with point 1) You have said "we have BEEN THROUGH the high court and it was not mentioned there either"... This is incorrect, Sullivan QC had argued the point about how the land was registered all along (with all his other points) in the high court, as the high court judgement reads.
The reason this was very unpredicted by our management and lawyers (at least to our knowledge) is because of the first basic principal defence in Torrents Law, That once registered anything prior is no longer of consequence. Lilly QC argued that though there might have been a few discrepancies in the registration process (he played down the magnitude a bit there) this was irrelevant now because the land had been registered and had a title. Lilly QC argued that by making a ruling over the land in favour of the appellants would then water down the Immediate Indefensibility of the Torrents system (anything prior to registration should not matter once it was registered).
The Immediate indefensibility seems to be particularly important because both Lilly and Sullivan agreed that they did not wish any ruling to water it down. Also Judge Brown ruled on that immediate indefensibility when he made his ruling saying in his judgement that once the land was registered it could not be questioned how it was registered.
The CoA simple ruled around it stating that because it was never registered properly it never should have gained its registration and therefore should and could not fall under the immediate indefensibility defence. If you follow me.
So what I am saying is that a) Sullivan QC was aware of this likely outcome (but probably didnt hope for it) and b) it was very much a part of the High Court Judgement (so much so that we won on it in the HC lol)
Expand
Gee Tez I agree with 99.9% of that ....the only thing i Disagree with is SULLIVAN did not expect the CoA to make that finding on registration, if he did he knew it could implicate 2 other Tenements of SMM. this was a good tactic by the then CEO of SMM to claim part of all this registration and granting of MOU,s AS corruption/bribery .....Sullivan Expected the whole registration process to be proven as corrupt or questionable ...however they were stunned the CoA applied the ACT on Tenements and Land Banking....cheers