IMO the Government cannot defend the current Federal Court case filed by Advent/Asset.
We know from the Federal Court bundle that Scomo was warned about the Pathfinder precedent which means the Government cannot apply policy inflexibly.
We know from the Federal Court bundle, and from ASX announcements, that NOPTA has recommended approval of the PEP11 applications on 5 separate occaisions.
We know from Hansard that the ALP has a Caucus approved policy to deny all PEP11 applications, this is illegal, and IMO worse than the actions taken by Scomo.
We know from his public statements, Ed Husic denied the applications on the basis of public interest and finance concerns. We know that NOPTA did not have any such concerns.
We know from the Federal Court bundle that public interest alone in not sufficient grounds for a refusal.
From the above, we know that Ed Husic could not, under ALP caucus rules, approve the applications (predetermined bias), so his refusal had to be reverse engineered (I.E. the outcome was predetermined, so his task was not to make the decision on merit, but to backfill the decision that had already been made).
So, can he justify refusal on finacial capacity grounds? No, he cannot, and here is why:-
I recently posed the question to the forum, "what is the right amount of money Advent needed to show to alleviate Ed Husic's concerns?". Concensus was, the legislation does not define a set amount, so it is subjective.
So, what if there was a precedent where NOPTA approved an application where the titleholder had just $50,000 in the bank?
Yes, just $50,000!!!!
I raised this "precedent" with a major PEP11 shareholder when I located it, their response was simply "You. Are. Joking.". No, I was
NOT joking.
The precedent i was referring to was the curious case of VIC/P47 operated by Emperor Energy (this is not advice to deal in the securities of EMP)
The VIC/P47 permit was due to expire in August 2023 due to work program conditions not having been met. Just days before expiry, the operator submitted an S&E NOPTA application.
The basis for the S&E was a tenuous link to the Santos/Barossa court case regarding NOPSEMA delays, they claimed Force Majeure.
The September 2023 quarterly for Emperor showed they held just $50,000 in the bank at the time of submission.
Just six months later, in February 2024, the Federal Member of the JA, Minsiter for Resources, Madeleine King, granted the approval of the S&E application giving Emperor a 2 year extension to their work program.
UN-BE-LIEVABLE.
So what does this mean for PEP11?
It gives Jutice Jackson everything he needs to award the case to Advent/Asset. The caucus policy demonstrates the bias, the Pathfinder precedent gives him the ability to consider the reasonableness of the decision in the absence of defined legislative thresholds, and the Emperor precedent demonstrates the unreasonable basis for refusal given PEP11 companies had $10M combined cash at the time of refusal compared to Emperor's negligible cash position. IMO a slam dunk, a NO BRAINER!
The Government IMO cannot win the case.
The Government IMO will not be allowed to defend the case under model litigant policy.
I fully expect a mediated settlement prior to the deadline for the Government to lodge it's defence due to the incompentant and embarrassing nature of how this Government has handled the PEP11 title. I expect we will find out this date on Tuesday at the Case Management hearing.
JMO. DYOR. GLTAH.
230930 EMP Quarterly.pdf
PS - Emperor will shortly need to submit another S&E as they are yet to submit their NOPSEMA application so cannot drill by August 2025, the revised permit expiry date. Will be one to keep an eye on.
My mentions of EMP are not advice, full disclosure, I do not, and have never, owned shares in EMP.
(20min delay)