Hi
@itzgr82baliveI appreciate your concern and I welcome spirited debate. What you've said in your first paragraph effectively mirrors what I said in my last that you replied to. It is not 'very condescending' simply because I have seen instances where it is clear that some people are conflating damages in these proceedings and other possible proceedings that may or may not be brought. As for the balance, that is not condescending either. It's merely stating, from experience, how the wheels of litigation turn. For some people, this is uncharted territory and that's fine, but it is of no assistance to anyone, let alone the person posting, if they are clearly labouring under a misapprehension or a misunderstanding and that belief is snowballing unabated. The damages issue is a perfect example.
Given your robust reply, I can take it then that you're familiar with the evidence and the methodology that leads to that $27M figure put forth and the proposed estimate figure of $28M? If so, please feel free to share your information but do be mindful of legal privilege and confidentiality. Nobody wants to see proceedings go off the rails because documents that should not have been disseminated are inadvertently published. I saw an inter-party letter on another thread and I'm assuming (or hoping) that was obtained from the Court file as an annexure to something that access was was permitted to, but I simply don't know.
I'll say it again because you can't script this sort of stuff - This is yet another thread in the rich tapestry that is ISX. Success, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Hence, it is not uncommon for parties to civil litigation to both claim success. It's even better here, because the matter is nowhere near a conclusion let alone a victory lap. It may not be strictly applicable, but I'm often reminded of how the Rashomon effect occurs in litigation and how it never ceases to keep turning up. Parties describe an event in a different and contradictory manner, which reflects, probably subconsciously, their subjective interpretation and self-interested advocacy, rather than an objective truth. Again, if there is any evidentiary basis for the figures that can be disclosed or a means of discovering them, please by all means share. At risk of repetition, the onus of proving damage rests squarely on ISX after they have established primary liability. If that burden of proving damage can't be discharged both to causation and quantification, it's a hollow victory at best, and a Pyrrhic victory at worst.
ASX have lost their head, ISX can't afford to lose theirs.
Cheers all.
