On February 13, 2009 Canadian Superior Energy filed their Motion of Appeal of the Receivership Order granted to British Gas International. It represents Canadian Superior Energy's position as the defendant and challenges the original receivership order and asks that it be overturned on the following grounds:

"4. The learned Justice erred in fact and law in failing to apply the principles of natural justice by:

a) not allowing the Appellant a brief adjournment to permit it's counsel to cross-examine the Respondent on the voluminous Affidavit they had submitted to the Court; and

b) not allowing the Appellant a brief adjournment to permit it to put its own evidence before the court, if so advised; particularly when it was submitted that certain critical “alleged facts” were in dispute,

5) The learned Justice erred in fact and law in failing to require British Gas to honour the terms of a contract between the parties (A “Joint Operating Agreement” or “JOA”) which, inter allia , required British Gas on its application for the Receivership Order , to have allowed the Appellant/Defendant the opportunity to file evidence;

6) The learned judge erred in fact and law by failing to find that under the JOA, British Gas had adequate and sufficient other remedies available to it short of a Receivership Order;

7) The learned Justice erred in fact and law in failing to find that granting the Receivership Order placed British Gas in breach of the JOA;

8) The learned judge erred in fact and law in failing to find that British Gas had not come to court with "clean hands";

9) The learned judge erred in fact and law in failing to consider the Alberta Rules of Court , specifically but not limited to Rule 314 , which allows for cross examination of an Affidavit for any action or proceeding;

10) The learned judge erred in fact and law in not requiring British Gas to post an undertaking as to damages;

11) The learned judge erred in fact and law in failing to not properly apply s13(2) of the Judicature Act R.S.A. 2000, c J-2 specifically, but not limited to, the interpretation of the "just or convenient" test in the circumstances of this case; and

12) The learned judge erred in fact and law at first instance in refusing to hear the Application entirely, based on the doctorine of "forum conveniens".

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/...

And in the Notice Of Motion filed by Canadian Superior Energy dated February 19, Canaidan Superior Energy asks the court to rule on the following:

a) to grant a stay of enforcement of the February 11, 2009 Redeivership Order;

b) that the Receivership Order be conditional on British Gas being responsible for damages;

c) Canadian Superior Energy is asking for an order to expedite the Appeal;

d) Canadian Superior asks that British Gas pay for the costs of the Appeal.

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/...

This is an interesting battle being waged in the courts by both sides,

Cheers; Scott