Talk:Knyvett v Christchurch Casinos Ltd

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because I have cited in this very article proof of its relevance, a book that is widely used in NZ law schools. In light of this, I find it bizarre that it is not only tagged for deletion, but a speedy one at that. Has this member not got better things to do? thanks for the apology...
 * Apologies, was a small mistake. Wasn't quite aware of what you had said. Cheers! → εϻαd ιν  ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 16:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)