re caz and high court appeal, page-7

Thanks to all for responding.
I asked the question: regarding the possibility of any impact upon the intended High Court appeal of CAZ's "dealing" with Burke because it seems to me that the dealing will not have enhanced the chance of a CAZ success in Canberra.

It seems to me that if CAZ is going to argue along the lines of the advice given by QC Martin: that the action of the minister in using Section 111A was, in effect, illegal because section 111A only covers mining and not exploration tenements then the consideration for the High Court will be a simple black and white one. That is Martin's opinion is either correct or incorrect. If correct then other things (dealings) which may or may not have happened will not be taken into account.

I am thinking though that the case will be a grey one rather than a simple black and white. The following statement by CAZ would seem to indicate this:

"The Company would like to make clear that the judgment related only to the legal issues raised by the decision made by former Minister Bowler. It was neither a review of the commercial nor policy merits of the Minister's decision. The Company continues to contend that the former Minister's decision is fundamentally flawed."

To my mind, after much reading about the matter (Pasminco etc) Martin's opinion made a lot of sense me. I would be hoping that CAZ will be appealing along the lines laid out by Martin regarding section 111A