Legal Matters, page-120

As far as the previous judgement goes Heathgate were recognised as the agents.

From richard21's post 12/2/2015 (see below) of the record of outcome, only QUASAR RESOURCES PTY LTD are listed as Defendants. Does anyone have any other information on who the defendants in this case are? Based on what I have read you would surely have included Heathgate as a defendant.

It could be possible that because Heathgate are Quasars delegates under the deed of assignment they are viewed as one and the same thing. I would have thought attaching Heathgate to the claim would have been done on a precautionary basis. There may be pre-agreed facts as part of the pre-trial process that have eliminated Heathgate as a defendant, that is, Heathgate were originally included and they have since been dropped by agreement. It is hard to say with out seeing the original filings.

RECORD OF OUTCOME

Outcome Type: Order
Court of Origin:Supreme Court of South Australia

Action Number: SCCIV-14-1480
Between: ALLIANCE CRATON EXPLORER PTY LTD, Plaintiff
AND QUASAR RESOURCES PTY LTD, Defendant​

These are just all my speculations and opinions, I'm not a lawyer, I have never had any legal training. Do not rely in any way on what I've said. Do your own research. Seek professional advice if you are unsure about any investment decisions and their suitability to your particular circumstances.

Eshmun