Talk:Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd v Zimbabwe

Latest comment: 12 years ago by 85.210.192.172 in topic Successful seizure of Zim assets in South Africa
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I created the article, with two sections: "Background" and "The Decision." I intend to expand both sections in the coming weeks. Trsg (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The "undos" made on September 3, 2009 were due to the deletion of a reference after an edit. Other references that referred back to the deleted reference became orphan, and a full original reference had to be introduced in the appropriate place. Trsg (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Pvt

What does "Pvt" (in the case name) mean? Apokrif (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe it just means "private." Trsg (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Statements at Westminster Hall by Benjamin John Freeth

These were added to the "Post-Development Decisions" section. Interesting comments, but I don't see how they affect the case or why they constitute a "development." I propose that everything from "Intervention of the Uncle..." until "birthday honors 2010" be deleted. Trsg (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Successful seizure of Zim assets in South Africa

Perhaps some mention could be made of the applicants' success in seizing Zimbabwe government assets in South Africa, eg. [1]? - htonl (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted - done 85.210.192.172 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)