No this is in relation to the statute of limitations for...

No this is in relation to the statute of limitations for bringing a civil action. If for example the VIC government forced successfully for LKO to give up it's license to then award to another firm to perform exactly the same function.

This was to answer a previous posters suggestion that it could be the case for LKO being forced to give up their licence for the VIC government to give this to another firm. This of course is only a hypothesis of why the government has acted in this way.

My point is that if LKO were to consider or be able to prove there has been collusion by any part involved, they no doubt would bring a civil action against the government. The statute of limitations from the best of my knowledge for civil matters is 10 years.

So whether the ban is removed or not, if it was seen that actions were taken to effectively replace LKO with another company for no apparent reason, there would be some big question marks. But this is all hypothetical and speculation. I'd rather deal with the outcome and the facts. Anyway, collusion would be a hard thing to prove.