Closing submissions heard in high-stakes Northern Territory Supreme Court case over disagreement between Inpex and Halikos stemming from Darwin’s H105 hotel

AN ugly, multi-million dollar lawsuit between Darwin hotel company Halikos Hospitality and global gas giant Inpex is now in the hands of a Supreme Court judge, with both sides finalising their arguments on Thursday

AN ugly, multi-million dollar lawsuit between Darwin hotel company Halikos Hospitality and global gas giant Inpex is now in the hands of a Supreme Court judge, with both sides finalising their arguments on Thursday.

The case revolves around whether a series of emails, letters and a celebratory dinner at Hanuman Restaurant sealed a binding deal for Inpex to take out hundreds of rooms at Halikos’s H105 hotel on Mitchell St.

The deal, which Inpex claims was never finalised but which Halikos claims became binding, saw the Halikos Group borrow tens of millions to fund the hotel’s construction.

In closing arguments on Thursday, Dick Whittington QC, for Halikos, said Justice Judith Kelly would need to “peel back the onion several layers” to conclude Inpex mislead his client.

The court heard a key question would be whether Inpex simply knew Halikos was building a hotel where Inpex workers would stay, or whether there was a binding agreement for Inpex to take and pay for a certain number of rooms.

The court gallery was lined with senior staffers and spin doctors from each company, with millions in damages, legal costs and much-prized corporate reputations at stake.

The case heard oral evidence in March from a who’s who of the Territory’s most powerful, including from former chief minister Adam Giles, Inpex general manager Sean Kildare and Halikos Group managing director Shane Dignan.

Patricia Cahill, SC, for Inpex, said the gas giant knew Halikos was building the hotel on the same street as Inpex’s Darwin offices — but that it never finalised any agreement to rent out rooms.

She also said Halikos had misrepresented the two companies’s dealings to its bank and ignored a clear “warning shot” email from Inpex that the deal had not been finalised.

Justice Kelly’s decision will be handed down at a later date.