( lets face it the true reason is probably because Moolman have proved themselves turgid operators).
MAybe the counter-claim explians why we had the recent share drop.
An actionable misrepresentation , however, has nothing to do with 'mining' and suggests that Moolman presented themselves falsely when they went for the contract.
AQP must provide evidence of this, and surely it would not be difficut to do so.
IF AQP's case is frivolous, I think we would all be very annoyed.
Also, IF Moolman's counter claim predates that of AQP, then AQP appear in the position of defensive counter-claimers. WHo was the ist to issue a writ I wonder?
Intersting .