The main components of Westgold’s statement of claim against the Company in this Supreme Court Action are as follows: • An alleged breach of section 1001A(2) of the Corporations Act in that the Company allegedly contravened the ASX Listing Rules by failing to notify the ASX of information alleged to have been known to it on or before  30 April 1997 (being a date prior to Westgold’s purchase of the Woss Shares). It is Westgold’s contention that  certain information, if published, was information that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect  on the price or value of the Company’s shares. • An alleged contravention of the previous section 995(2) of the Corporations Law (being a misleading or deceptive  statement made in relation to securities in the legislation prior to the current Corporations Act) which Westgold  allege to have occurred by public releases made on or about 30 April 1997. Westgold allege that these public  releases represented that, save for certain matters, the Company’s operations were proceeding satisfactorily and  with record levels of gold production in the ordinary course of operations and that there were no further adverse  factors affecting or likely to affect the Company’s operations or  fi  nancial position. Westgold’s contention is that  this was misleading and deceptive in that, in its contention: - the Company’s operations were not proceeding satisfactorily and the Company had not overcome and was not  overcoming operational and  fi  nancial dif fi  culties from which it had suffered; - there were many adverse factors affecting and likely to affect the Company’s operations and  fi  nancial position; - the record production level in the relevant quarter was the result of an abnormal occurrence; - the Company was aware of a reason or factor which likely would preclude the establishment of a viable mining  operation at certain of the Company’s tenements and which likely would require revision of the Company’s  published gold reserves for those tenements. All of these allegations are denied by St Barbara and the claim is being robustly defended. St Barbara has joined  two the directors who were directors of the Company at the time to the action. The best case scenario for the Company is to be wholly successful in its defence and thereby have no liability. The maximum possible liability for the Company (without any contribution from former directors, insurers or  insurance brokers) would be for the entire loss alleged by Westgold (being approximately $7.5 million plus interest  to the date of judgement calculated at 8%, together with legal costs). The Company intends, as part of its defence,  to argue that should it be found liable (which it denies) then certain contribution orders should be made in relation  to third parties and that, in addition, the Company is of the view that Westgold must, in any event, apportion any  loss it incurred as between the sale of the Woss Share and other St Barbara shares held by Westgold which were  sold simultaneously with the Woss Shares. An unsuccessful party will usually also be liable for its own and the other  party’s legal costs. The application has been listed for hearing on 3 December 2004. In the meantime, the Company has applied  to the Supreme Court to strike out part of Westgold’s statement of claim which the Company contends discloses  no reasonable course of action against the Company. A hearing date for this application has not yet been  fi  xed. The Company has incurred legal costs to date in the order of $720,000. It is possible that the Westgold litigation  may not proceed to trial for a further 12 months, in which case, the Company in defending this action may incur  further legal costs in the order of $750,000 to $1 million, which costs could escalate in the event that costs were  awarded against the Company or the trial judge’s decision were to be appealed. It should be emphasised that  none of the current directors of the Company were directors of the Company at the time that the above share  transactions took place. On 2 July 2002, Kingstream Steel Limited (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) commenced proceedings  in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Company and its 100% owned subsidiary, Zygot Ltd. Kingstream alleges it has a claim against the Company and Zygot Ltd arising from the withdrawal of three mining  lease applications (“MLA’s”), which applications are alleged to be part of the subject matter of an Option Deed  between the Company and Kingstream dated 26 March 1997 as supplemented by a Deed dated 20 January 1998  and a letter dated 29 January 1999 from the Company’s lawyers to Kingstream. Kingstream exercised the option in  February 1999. Kingstream alleges in essence that the Company and Zygot Ltd breached the express or implied terms of the  Option Deed by causing or allowing the MLA’s to be withdrawn. The proceedings are at an early stage and have been, and will continue to be, defended. However, on the basis  of expert advice received the Company considers its potential exposure in relation to this claim to have a value  (including costs) of less than $200,000. (ii) Kingstream 57