Legal action over Tarkine mine leases granted to Venture Minerals, page-2

An old one I was reading through,

Save the Tarkine Media Release 3/7/2014
Minister in error in granting Mt Lindsay Mine Lease .

...

Today’s announcement by Venture Minerals that they have been granted a mine lease at Mt Lindsay raises critical questions over the legality of lease granted, and the current mine lease allocation system.
Venture Minerals, in their statement to the ASX say;
'With the mining lease now granted the Company will focus on advancing the application documents required to obtain the State and Commonwealth environmental approvals necessary for the development of the Project'
and;
'Venture also continues to evaluate financing options for the future development of the Mt Lindsay Tin/Tungsten Project.'
However section 78a of the Mineral Resources Development Act clearly decrees that;
78A. When Minister may grant application
(1) The Minister may only grant an application for a lease if the Minister is satisfied that the applicant –
(a) has demonstrated that there is a sufficient quantity of minerals to justify mining; and
(b) intends to carry out mining operations under the lease; and
(c) intends to comply with this Act; and
(d) has an appropriate mining plan; and
(e) is likely to have sufficient financial and technical resources to carry out the mining plan; and
(f) has provided the Director with sufficient information relating to the likely impact on the environment; and
(g) has provided a security deposit.
“Clearly the relevant sections (e & f) of the Act have not been complied with and this mine lease appears to be unlawful. It is impossible to have sufficient information on environmental impacts before the assessment documents have even been produced let alone assessed, and the company admits it is still exploring financial options”, said Save the Tarkine Campaign Coordinator, Scott Jordan.
“After the financial and environmental messes left by recent mine failures, you would expect that the Minister would seek to protect Tasmania by at the very least following the lawful process as set out in the legislation.”
“This decision to grant a licence over an area equivalent to 411 Melbourne Cricket Grounds creates a significant sovereign risk issue. If there is a failure of the mine, what exposure does the Tasmanian taxpayer have to investors or suppliers if it is found by a court finds that there was no valid mine lease?”
“Or heavens forbid, if there was an accident involving injury or loss of life, does the State of Tasmania bear liability given it allowed mining to proceed without a valid mine lease?”
“The Minister should urgently revoke the invalid lease, and commit to a proper and lawful assessment process”.

Geez, how can you make a case against the word 'likely' in court! Are they likely to have the money? Yes. Does that mean they will definitely get the money? No.

Sufficient information is probably an easier one to argue.