Below is an a copy of the article from "The West...

Below is an a copy of the article from "The West Australian".

Obviously there is still some uncertainty relating to the recommendation by WA's Wardens Court. ( just bought into Kidman today again after bailing in about June, July with a loss).

What I am not sure of is:

1. the company will have the right to develop MT Holland tenements into a mine.

or 

2. Kidman will have to pay  minimum expenditure obligations over 13 mining tenements held by the company’s subsidiaries.

or 

3. Wardens Court will be over ruled.

Obviously the 3rd option is the best outcome.

2nd option will require some sort of payment how much?

3rd Option would not be good for us, and send the wrong signal to investors.

Does anyone have an idea which outcome is likely, 1, 2 or 3, or is it a wait and see.

Spending rules put cloud over Kidman Resources, SQM’s Mt Holland lithium mine

Kidman Resources’ Mt Holland lithium project near Southern Cross has been placed under a cloud by a recommendation of the WA Warden’s Court.

The court yesterday recommended Mines Minister Bill Johnston refuse requests by Kidman to be exempt from minimum expenditure obligations over 13 mining tenements held by the company’s subsidiaries.

The recommendation, which follows a hearing in November last year, puts a question mark over whether the company will have the right to develop the tenements into a mine.However, Mr Johnston will make a final decision on the matter and could rule against the recommendation.

The applications relate to a period from August 2014 to March 2016, before Kidman acquired the Mt Holland project in July 2016.SQM chief executive Patricio de Solminihac and Kidman managing director Martin Donohue.The matter came before the court because two parties — Phoenix Rise and Jeffrey Hull —opposed the exemptions being granted and also lodged forfeiture applications over the tenements.