Which we will never be able to answer conclusively, regardless...

Which we will never be able to answer conclusively, regardless of which burden of proof is used. If a balance of probabilities is used, the court may make an error in judgement denying a hardworking CEO his entitlements. The court can't turn a blind eye to the fact that executing those contracts were very beneficial to ISX, which is exactly what was expected of him per the performance agreement. What message will that send to CEOs of the other thousands of companies?

So the real question is: why has ISX's business been stalled from an indefinite suspension over an issue that can never, ever be conclusively addressed and has caused no detriment to the company, but rather benefits to the company?

If anyone's looking for causes of detriment, they should look no further than ASX's suspension.