to be relevant as going to public interest

I'm not a holder but i have been following developments as i'm curious to see how much steam there is left in the arbitrary, inappropriate and ill advised use of S111A in this case.

http://www.mpr.wa.gov.au/documents/mineralsandpetroleum/wardens_decisions/2004WAMW15.pdf

good example, but generally speaking S11A is all about not disturbing land for mining purposes. That is, the Minister may object to the granting of a licence to disturb land for mining purposes as it is not deemed to be in the public interest, eg pollution, native title etc.

"However, under s 111A of the Act, the Minister may refuse an application for a mining tenement (including an exploration licence) if he is satisfied on reasonable grounds that it is in the public interest that the land should not be disturbed or that the application should not be granted."

it will not be possible to brush aside or skirt around this central issue once it reaches the High Court. That is to say, that a mining licence has been granted to both Rio and Cazaly at different times so there is no public interest issue for the High Court to consider in terms of disturbing the land or people on the land. Simply put S111A is irrelevant, redundant ie should never have been used as an argument. This was always going to come back to bite someone in a big way.
Some posters seem to think that S111A as interpreted by the Minister will stack up in the High Court! That is not to say that RIO do not have another card up their sleeve. This is the angle that i would be looking at if i was considering investing in Cazaly ie what other cards can RIO play?

Should they choose to use this angle as someone previously pointed out
""you don't upset your largest clients (as is RIO to the state of WA), and if in upsetting them, you run the risk of potentially losing billions of investment dollars, well that can hardly be purported to be in the "public interest"."
This is doomed to failure as well, particularly with the huge demand for minerals. I can see developers/investors lining up to fill any void left by RIO should they wish to look elsewhere.
Or they could try the following angle..
Does RIO deserve to keep the tenement 'after all they have done for WA'?? Slightly more interesting point for debate but where is deserve mentioned in the mining Act in question??
At the end of the day..
Exactly what has Cazaly done wrong especially in relation to any other possible misconstrued use of S111A?? ie are they persons of ill repute??

Exactly what mining law have they broken, in regard to their application???

still a gamble of course so play knowing that you may get burnt.