The tone of the AFR article is suggesting it is from the WSA...

The tone of the AFR article is suggesting it is from the WSA side of things. So both sides are using the AFR as a mouthpiece on the SID.

The article goes on to say that IGO doesn't believe that the SID is a Takeover as defined in Chapter 6.

Maybe so, by strict definition of C6, but it has the same outcome....the purchase of an asset (WSA). Surely a court would take the view of the outcome of the SID is more important (the final arbiter) of whether a TO is occurring or not. And not be caught up in the fluffy argument that a SID is occurring, and not a TO.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I'm a bush lawyer though.