Its a excerpt of the appeal application dated back last year.
The strange thing are these lines:
"The Orders of the Commissioner were premised on Axiom having a registered interest in the lands in question. Mr Sullivan of Queen's Counsel, who appeared today for SMM, submitted that the Commissioner's failure to deal with the threshold question of whether Axiom truly had a registered interest was an error. He submitted that if Axiom did have such interest and if Axiom were not restrained in the manner sought before the Chief Justice, the customary land owners' rights would be irreparably damaged"
"In our respectful view, the Orders ought not to have been made in the absence of evidence of this prejudice. The prejudice not having being raised before the Chief Justice, it would be wrong to allow it to be raised now. It would be wrong to allow SMM to file further material at this point."
It would appear that it was signed by the members/president of the court of appeal.
To me it would seem that the appeal was based on the fact that the judge had 'presumed' that there was a 'registered interest' in those lands - whether there was in fact or not I don't know. The advantage Axiom have with regards to the appeal is that no new evidence should be allowed.
Anyone else have a different take?
AVQ Price at posting:
39.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
