求助英文能力强的朋友帮助翻译一小段

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

The respondent acquired the mineral rights in February 2005 from Dynamic Mineral Development (Pty) Ltd whose predecessor in title had acquired them in 2002 from the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) representing the State. At the time the respondent acquired the mineral rights, Come Lucky (Pty) Ltd (Come Lucky) was the owner of the land. The deed of transfer in terms of which the DME alienated the mineral rights defined these as certain 20 unnumbered base mineral claims.

             However, one cannot consider just that one part of the form in isolation. It is one of a number of questions relating to access roads. In this regard the indication in C2.15 that the access road will not be longer than 1.5 km, in C2.16 that ‘no trees would be uprooted when constructing access roads’, as well as the indication in C2.17 that ‘foreign material like crushed stone, limestone or any material other than the naturally occurring top soil would be placed on the road surface’ show clearly that the ‘no’ tick in C2.14 (ostensibly indicating that no new roads would be constructed), is simply a mistake as pointed out by the respondent’s counsel. I cannot also fathom a situation where the permit holder can be regarded bound by a clearly mistaken tick on the form. I am of the view that, when all the questions and answers are considered in that portion of the form, it is clear that the construction of a new road was envisaged when the environmental management plan was submitted.

            Furthermore, there is no indication on the papers that there are any existing roads from any public road to the mineral rights area. This can only mean that the Minister and officials of the DME, when granting the permit, and approving the environmental management plan, were alive to that fact. Therefore, when the permit was granted and the environmental management plan approved, the respondent was also granted the right to construct a new road to the mineral rights area. In the absence of any access road to the mineral rights area, it remains a mystery how, in the appellants’ mind, the respondent is to exploit its mining rights. In the final analysis it remains for us to clarify that the relief granted by the court a quo does not authorise or permit the respondent to contravene any of the provisions of the Act or commit an offence.

          将 感谢100论坛币！！！

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：Construction Constructing environment constructed Development 求助 翻译 能力 英文 朋友

被诉人从2005年2月收购了动态矿产开发（控股）有限公司，其前身是于2002年收购了所有权从矿产部和能源部（DME）的代表国家他们的开采权。当时，被告取得的采矿权，你来幸运（控股）有限公司（来吧幸运），是土地的所有者。契约中的条款，其中二甲醚疏远了矿业权定义了这些如某些矿物索赔20门牌基地转移。

             然而，我们可以不考虑只是其中一个孤立的组成部分。这是一个有关道路的若干问题之一。在这方面，在C2.15的通路将不超过1.5公里的C2.16，这说明'没有树木被连根拔起的时候兴建道路'，因为指示，以及在C2.17的外国如碎石，石灰石或任何天然材料比其他材料的表层土壤将被放置在路面上，清楚地表明了'不'剔C2.14（表面上表示没有新的道路将待建），简直是一所指出的错误作为答辩人的律师。我不能也捉摸一个地方的许可证持有人可以被视为一个明确的表格上打勾的约束错误的情况。本人认为，当所有的问题和答案都在这部分的形式考虑后认为时，很显然，一个新的道路建设的设想时，提交环境管理计划。

            此外，也没有在报纸上有任何公共道路的任何权利方面的矿物现有道路的迹象。这只能意味着部长和二甲醚，在批准的许可，审批的环境管理计划的官员，还活着这个事实。因此，当被授予许可证和环境管理计划获得批准，被申请人还授予权利建造一条新路的矿产权利领域。在没有任何通往矿产权利领域的情况下，它仍然是一个谜如何在上诉人的头脑，被告是利用其采矿权。在最后的分析，这仍然是我们要澄清，法院一现状不授权或准许答辩人违反该法的任何规定或犯下的罪行给予的救济。