interlocutory hearing....mayfair

would appear that AGS have initiated this hearing and it was principally to clarify paragraphs 5.1.1 2 and 3 of the judges response in relation to the discovery of documents. I suspect H/H Justice Mansfield is as tired of these arguments as we are on HC as they seem to just go round and round. H/H looked suitably bored with the proceedings and I suspect he was a little peeved that his responses were being criticised by AGS legal . Mr Whitington QC did not attend today for AGS and I think it was Mr Keen who spoke . He respectfully suggested that
5.1.1
5.1,2
5.1.3
were too general and that they could be ambiguously interpreted by Q HG
HH asked if there had been any discovery yet....NO
HH said that there was a great deal of detail to be dealt with and he had tried to generalise his orders
Mr Keen then went into a number of preexisting judgements that were relevent to a more detailed judgement...blah blah
7 cases that prove his point
He then gave a copy of his arguments to mr hoffman for Q
Mayfair missed out onthese documents
Hoffman got to his feet and said to HH that this was typical of AGS legal team to dump pieces of paper on him at the last moment .Hoffman seemed to be caught off guard... I think HH agreed but he said lets see what happens
Keen then went on to dissect 5.1.1
5.1,2
5.1.3 go to transcriptVID 551

5.1.1 Mr Keen queried the dates 30 aug 2002 to 30 august 2004......may be documents prior to thse dates that are vital to the understanding of documents betw these dates
queried the word data …......if discovery confined to data this could be different to info arising from the data …..what is covered by data is it primary data or or reports that interpret the data
is this data considered to be from Q alone or is it data relating to Q AND HG and employees o f HG
want it specified that the documentary discovery is from Quasar and Heathgate and for there to be no ambiguity to the wording
ambiguity was the key word
specifically mentioned ML6036 drilling programme?? in 2002 to 2004 in adjacent tenements
was very difficult to hear and then interpret
discovery is both HG and Q and documents passing betw the 2
Deep South airborne survey.......anyone recognise deep south.......over 6036
he noted that the time period started fo discovery started in may 2004 but was interested in surveys done in april 2004
he gave an example of discovery document as being an email betw one HG employee and another HG employee...PM?/? And also perhaps from one HG employee to Q employee
May 2002 aerial survey very important it would appear
want info on the prospectivity of adjacent tenements
HH said he doesnt want more documents and asked if some of this was in previous documentation He looked at the clock ...thinks ...how long will this go on

keen continues ...want plan of prospectivity survey
propose variation in orders to address ambiguities
submitted proposed variations ….formal definition of adjacent tenementsand para. Plains area
does adjacent mean tenements ML 6036, DL3002 ,?301, 3001, ??63,
3078....may be an objection to 3078 keen said
….documents which record , assess or analysis of interpretation of data
What did Quasar take into considerationfor its drilling programme
….documents discovered not confined to Quasar but extending to both respondents
…..documents not just drilling but also but should involve productivity

something about drill holes on P Plains. Atthis stage A break was held and I took my chance to leave . Iguess Mr Hoffman argued against all this . Hopefully Justice Mansfields pride is not hurt too much by the critism of his findings and reasons and will consider AGS case
I guess when you[ ie Mansfield ]spend a lot of time producing a document [ie his reasons ],for this never ending case and then someone [ie AGS legal.] tries to start the merry go round again you get p..d off


sorry it wasnt more flowing but was extremely difficult to hear , Some points I cant clarify as I was too busy taking notes and I had to try to decipher …..may ring a bell with someone