I read through both those court docs linked above a while ago, an interesting read if you've got the time, I'll paraphrase the case below, all to the best of my understanding and IMHO...
The prosecution (them) had a 'competent person' who presented data about what was expected to be found on our tenement, this data was extrapolated from ASX announcements by other companies on nearby tenements, the judge said there was two kinds of info in these announcements - factual stuff and opinion stuff made by other competent persons.
The defence (us) argued that in order to fully understand and possibly challenge the opinion stuff in these announcements we had to know how it was derived, in order to know how it was derived the prosecution would have to call these other competent persons from other companies as witnesses and put them on the stand so they could explain, the judge agreed with us, the prosecution wasn't able to provide these witnesses due to time and costs involved.
The data the prosecution competent person presented didn't add up and no one could work out how it was derived, he couldn't explain his workings in a way that satisfied the judge, furthermore he also changed the data twice during the trial due to errors he discovered whilst in the courtroom.
IMHO we're as safe as houses, and the prosecution competent person was actually rather incompetent, but who knows...
Expand
(20min delay)