what the judge actually said dismissing stay , page-6

No, decrisper. Read what I said again.

Of course SMSL want to make things financially difficult for Lynas. That is obvious and I am not disputing that.

In order to get an injunction, it must be shown that to refuse one would cause significant damage to the applicant (in this case SMSL are worried about damage to the environment) and it must also be shown that an injunction would not financially ruin the company it would be issued against.

The judge refused the injunction today because SMSL failed to show that the environment would be impacted by Lynas operating (based on scientific review) and because any further delay would financially decimate Lynas.

SMSL then responded (allegedly) that Lynas would not be financially impacted because they can appeal in 48 hours.

However, the issue of financial hardship is determined by the expected duration of the whole proceedings - and not a contest to see how fast you can file an appeal.

They have to show that Lynas would not be impacted by appeal proceedings that could potentially go on for weeks. Which is obviously not the case.

Hope that cleared things up.