The ruling in favour on NOT/CLF was based on a wrong interpretation of the law, by my reading. There are two clauses regarding surface rights on unpatented mining claims; one relates to situations where a person or company is already using the surface for another purpose like farming, living in a house, or similar. In that event those prior users have first right on surface uses. In a situation where claims are on Crown land (as is the case with this corridor) the claim holder has pre-emptive priority to surface rights.

Don't forget there are two ongoing cases between NOT and KWG about claims. the appeal tomorrow is about the rail/road corridor, while the other concerns the claims staked by KWG using a helicopter, disputed by NOT.