PERTH (miningweekly.com) – The saga surrounding ASX-listed Metgasco’s Rosella exploration well is set to continue until at least December, after the Supreme Court informed the company that a hearing could only be scheduled at the end of the year, rather than the previously anticipated October.

Metgasco on Thursday also informed shareholders that the New South Wales government had declined to lodge supporting evidence with the court to support its decision to suspend Metgasco’s exploration licence.

Last month, Metgasco turned to the Supreme Court after the New South Wales Office of Coal Seam Gas (OCSG) failed to amend a previous suspension of drilling activities at the Rosella exploration well. The OCSG maintained the suspension, providing the company with written material in support of the renewed suspension, which had originally been based on claims that Metgasco had failed to adequately conduct community consultation.

However, the state government missed its August 8 deadline to lodge supporting evidence for its decision with the Supreme Court, and has subsequently said that it had decided not to do so.

“We are surprised by the New South Wales government’s decision not to submit evidence. It is especially disappointing given the government’s claim a few weeks ago that our request for it to produce documents was ‘premature’,” said Metgasco MD and CEO Peter Henderson.

He noted that the information the company was seeking as part of its request to produce documents had not been provided, which was inconsistent with the government’s claims.

“As a result, Metgasco will explore a range of other options to have the documents produced,” Henderson said.

He pointed out that the OCSG’s suspension of Metgasco’s drilling approval had done significant damage to the company and had undermined investment confidence in the resource and infrastructure industries in the state.

“The decision not to submit any witness statements justifying the suspension makes it impossible for the decision-makers to be cross-examined. It is important in these circumstances that the suspension decision be properly justified by government and scrutinised by courts.”

Henderson added that by resisting the production of documentary evidence, the government decision-making lacked transparency and further undermined investment confidence.