Aim-listed Goldplat earlier this month said it would take immediate legal action against Rand Refinery.
This comes after an independent expert’s report concerning the ongoing contractual dispute between the two companies supported Goldplat’s assertions that it had fulfilled its obligations, acted in good faith and taken due care according to the obligations of a silver sulphide contract entered into by the companies.
In a statement to Mining Weekly, Rand Refinery CEO Praveen Baijnath says that the company is “satisfied it has incurred a demonstrable loss resulting from Goldplat’s breach of contract and failure to perform”.
On July 11, 2016, Goldplat announced the dispute with Rand Refinery over a binding memorandum of understanding entered into with the refinery to process a batch of silver sulphide material.
Last month, the final report from the independent metallurgical expert was released; however, the two parties have not been able to reach a settlement.
Rand Refinery subsequently averred that Goldplat’s 74%-owned Goldplat Recovery subsidiary owed it a “net amount”, which Goldplat found to be “completely unacceptable”.
Baijnath stated that Rand Refinery proposed a compromise settlement “of an amount far less than [the company’s] losses as a result of Goldplat’s performance failure”.
Goldplat believes it should receive R13.5-million from Rand Refinery.
“It is disappointing that, after completing a thorough independent investigation into the project, we are still unable to reach agreement with Rand Refinery.
“We will continue to keep the market informed as to the progress of the dispute over time. In the meantime, the management of Goldplat are focused on continuing the progress being made in all other aspects of our business, which are performing in line with expectations,” Goldplat CEO Gerard Kisbey-Green commented.
“We are in the process of evaluating all our options in this regard and this will likely involve litigation by Rand Refinery against Goldplat for the actual losses incurred by us as a result of their breach of contract and failure to perform,” Baijnath concluded.