you may have been reading the same stuff I have.........my...

you may have been reading the same stuff I have.........my understanding is both court decisions used damming evidence outside the contract wording to ascertain clarity to several points.
Case in point BRL's own admittance in several company ann's that the contract for payment had been triggered.
My understanding is the supreme court does not consider evidence of previous admittance to be of any worth.
Yes without a doubt much damming evidence outside the "contract wording" went against BRL and certainly appears to have made a difference to the first two rulings.
Supreme court could overturn the first two rulings......remember the supreme court do vet each case and will only hear them if they believe there maybe an issue with the original rulings......great day for shers if they do win.