You are directly contradicting Judge Martin's explicit...

You are directly contradicting Judge Martin's explicit statements.

Paragraphs 236 (January 2017 breach of the ROFR) and 240 & 241 (May 2017 breach of the ROFR), linked directly from the Western Australia court website, so do not bother trying to complain that it is "Unsubstantiated":

https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/ViewDecision?returnUrl=%2feCourtsPortal%2fDecisions%2fSearch%3fsearchText%3dVango%26jurisdiction%3dSC%26advanced%3dFalse&id=f22a3712-44be-4091-90b1-d9a2a94c46ad

Paras 240 & 241:

240 Consequently, at May 2017, an ROFR offer ought to have beenmade in parallel terms by both Vango and DPPL to Billabong Gold(DPPL in this May 2017 transaction is named as a party) to BillabongGold.

241 Towards this May 2017 occasion, I assess there to be a jointbreach by both defendants by their omission as regards OTA cl 12.6(b)vis-à-vis Billabong Gold (albeit the second defendant is a 100%subsidiary of the first defendant, Vango).