article, page-3

That was only successful to the point that its allowing an appeal of appointment by CHM.

The way i read it is that IPL was appealling CHM's appeal to stop the appointment. IPL wanted the appointment not to be challenged

Surely CHM would at least be able to appeal the original appointment which is probably why they won on all front's (according to CHM).

1. Appointment by IPL
2. CHM put in an appeal to stop or challenge the appointment
3. IPL challenged CHM's right to appeal & lost (supposeably)

So CHM at least gets to challenge the original appointment.

The actual successful on all fronts was only to stop IPL's appeal to CHM's appeal - As i read it.

All very confussing