quotable quotes:a) Murchison is liable to account for a portion...

quotable quotes:

a) Murchison is liable to account for a portion of the income it received as a consequence of the investment of $277,840 in Crosslands from 24 July 2004 to the present time.(Murchison notes that the project operated at a loss over this time).

INVESTMENT? that money was taken.

MMX notes project operated at a loss? does that mean that i can take money from you and use it to buy a long term bond that pays on maturity and and then claim sorry no profit yet so you can just have some interest on the money i took?

My understanding is that the innocent party (ie the party that suffered loss) isnt a speculator and as such shouldnt have to bear risk of the gain or otherwise. they have a right to choose between the asset or the cash plus interest if they so want

b) The Decision is clear that there is no claim to any future income or profits from the Jack Hills project.

Goodness. If this is actually in the judgment then we are seeing an appeal for sure. why not straight to the High Court. I think trial judge might be making law here rather than applying it to facts.

Surely it is poor public policy to allow people to take your money, run it through another related company and then say sorry you cant have what the cash was used to buy and sorry you cant have any income we earn in the future from that asset....

not over by a long shot.