UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of Earliest Event Reported: ~~October~~December 304, 2014

Empire Energy Corporation International

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


Nevada	1-10077	87-0401761
(State or other jurisdiction of Incorporation)	(Commission file number)	(IRS employer identification no.)

6750 Antioch Road

Merriam, Kansas 66204

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

+61 3 6231 3529

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2 below):

.Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

.Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

.Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 210.14d-2(b))

.Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

Item 8.01 Other Events

On ~~November~~December 34, 2014 Empire Energy Corporation International issued the following press release.

~~New~~Paul ~~York~~Batista ~~Judge~~Announces ~~Denies~~the ~~Smart Win'~~Court’s ~~Motion~~Setting ~~for Summary Judgment against Empire Energy Corporation International.~~of

~~NY, NY, October 30, 2014. Justice Jeffrey K. Oing of~~ the ~~New~~Trial ~~York~~Date ~~State~~in ~~Supreme Court today denied~~ the ~~motion of Smart Win International Limited for an award of summary judgment against~~ Empire Energy ~~Corporation International. Justice Oing also ruled that Empire could proceed on its breach of contract counterclaim against~~ /Smart Win. Action

~~Earlier~~New ~~this year~~York, ~~Smart~~New ~~Win~~York, ~~had moved for summary judgment of more than AUD $2 million judgment against Empire~~Dec. ~~Justice~~4, ~~Oing~~2014 ~~determined~~-- ~~that~~Paul ~~the~~Batista, ~~2008 agreement between Smart Win and Empire did not preclude~~ the ~~possibility~~attorney ~~that~~representing Empire's ~~costs~~Energy inCorporation ~~drilling~~International, ~~for oil in Tasmania might exceed~~ an ~~AUD$~~energy 5resources ~~million~~company, ~~funding~~announced ~~commitment~~that bytoday ~~Smart Win reflected in~~ the ~~2008~~New ~~agreement.~~York ~~The~~State judge ~~noted~~overseeing ~~that, for purposes of a summary judgment motion,~~ the ~~fact~~litigation ~~that~~between Empire's ~~prediction~~and ~~that the initial drilling costs might exceed AUD $ 5 million did not entitle~~ Smart Win toInternational ~~"turn~~Limited, ~~off"~~a ~~the~~Hong ~~funding~~Kong ~~"spigot" of up to the AUD $ 5 million commitment even if Empire~~firm, ashas itset ~~pursed~~April ~~its drilling efforts based on Smart Win's commitment of as much as $ 5 million~~13, ~~faced the possibility of cost overruns beyond the AUD $ 5 million. According to its own complaint~~2015, ~~Smart~~as ~~Win stopped making advances after it had advanced only approximately AUD $ 3 million of~~ the ~~AUD~~trial ~~$5 million~~date.

~~Justice~~The ~~Oing~~underlying ~~explicitly~~lawsuit ~~ruled~~stems ~~that~~from ~~summary~~a ~~judgment~~2008 ~~could~~agreement ~~not~~between beEmpire ~~granted~~and toSmart Win under which Smart Win oncommitted ~~all~~itself ~~four~~to ofproviding ~~the~~as ~~causes~~much ofas ~~action~~AUD it$5 ~~had~~million ~~asserted~~to finance drilling for oil and other energy resources at locations in Tasmania where Empire held licenses from the ~~complaint~~government to drill. Smart Win, ~~filed~~which inrefused ~~2010~~to advance the full AUD $5 million, has claimed that Empire should return approximately AUD $3.9 million.

~~Justice~~In ~~Oing~~its ~~also~~claims ~~determined that Empire's counterclaim for breach of contract~~ against Smart Win, ~~stemming~~Empire ~~from~~has asserted that Smart Win's ~~suspension~~breached ofthe ~~advances~~2008 ~~could~~contract ~~proceed~~by falling to ~~trial.~~advance Inthe ~~responding~~full toAUD a$5 ~~suggestion~~million byfinancing ~~Smart~~and ~~Win's counsel~~ that ~~any damages caused to Empire by~~ Smart Win's ~~suspension~~conduct ofcaused ~~advances was "too speculative," Justice Oing disagreed with that position, specifically reading into~~ the ~~record~~collapse ~~the testimony~~ of ~~John Garrison, a director of Empire, that, as Mr. Garrison testified,~~ the ~~conduct of Smart Win "stopped the process of~~ drilling ~~this~~venture ~~well.~~and Itinflicted ~~stopped~~on ~~the process before we [~~Empire] ~~were able to reach a point~~ in ~~the~~excess ~~well~~ of ~~proving~~AUD ~~that~~$1 itbillion was a productive well. There were hydrocarbons there to recover. [Smart Win] restricted us from raising other funds. It created significant uncertainty around this by having the issue that was detrimental in ~~dealing with other parties~~damages. It put uncertainty into other fund-raising. It stopped our progress and left us incurring standby costs from the drillers because they couldn't move ahead. So it increased the costs and shut down the process, and essentially put the company out of business. [Smart Win] added ammunition to the state of opponents trying to take the license from us."

~~After~~According ~~quoting~~to ~~this deposition testimony by~~ Mr. ~~Garrison~~Batista, ~~Justice~~Empire ~~Oing~~and ~~ruled~~its ~~that~~Chief aExecutive ~~trial~~Officer, ~~was~~Malcolm ~~needed~~Bendall, onhave ~~the~~agreed ~~extent~~to proceed to ~~which~~trial ~~Empire~~without ~~sustained~~a ~~damages~~jury. asMr. aBatista ~~result~~said, of"Justice ~~Smart~~Jeffrey ~~Win's~~K. ~~possible~~Oing, ~~breach~~a ofhighly ~~the~~respected ~~full~~judge, ~~funding~~has ~~commitment.~~consistently ~~The~~demonstrated ~~judge~~a ~~commented~~complete ~~that~~grasp of the ~~damages~~legal ~~Mr.~~and ~~Garrison~~factual ~~identified~~issues ~~were~~raised ~~not~~by ~~"speculative"~~this ~~for~~case. ~~purposes~~The ofjudge recently denied a motion for summary judgment brought by Smart Win, and ~~that~~in athe ~~trial~~course ~~was~~of ~~necessary~~denying atthe ~~which~~motion ~~Empire~~by ~~could~~Smart ~~seek~~Win tocommented, ~~attempt~~among toother ~~prove~~things, that the ~~financial~~trier ~~damages~~of itfact, ~~sustained~~whether asthe judge or a ~~result~~jury, ofwould ~~what~~have ~~Mr.~~to ~~Garrison~~evaluate ~~described~~the aspropriety of Smart Win's ~~"putting"~~'turning ~~Empire~~off ~~"out~~the spigot' before providing the full financing amount of ~~business~~AUD $5 million."

~~Under~~According ~~New~~to ~~York~~Mr. ~~law~~Batista, aEmpire's ~~motion~~decision ~~for~~to ~~summary~~try ~~judgment~~the iscase abefore ~~process~~Justice byOing ~~which~~was ~~one~~also ~~party~~based ~~seeks~~on tothe ~~avoid~~judge's ~~trial~~recent byruling, ~~asserting~~on October, 30, 2014, that ~~the~~Empire ~~facts~~was ~~are~~entitled soto ~~clear~~seek to prove that Smart Win breached the ~~party~~2008 ~~moving~~agreement ~~for~~and ~~summary~~that ~~judgment~~Smart ~~should~~Win's ~~win~~breach ~~solely~~led onto ~~the~~significant ~~basis~~losses ofto ~~information~~Empire ~~contained~~far in ~~affidavits~~excess ~~and~~of ~~other~~any ~~documents~~claims that Smart Win might have against Empire. ~~When~~Mr. ~~summary~~Batista ~~judgment~~also issaid, ~~denied~~"In deciding to proceed with a trial before Justice Oing only, as Smart Win itself had requested, Empire was also motivated by the ~~issues~~fact that a trial with a jury could last twice as long as a trial before Justice Oing. No one can ever predict the outcome of a trial, whether it is held before a judge only or a judge presiding over a jury, but Empire has full confidence in its position that it did not breach the contract, that Empire owes nothing to ~~which~~Smart ~~summary~~Win, ~~judgment~~and ~~were~~that, ~~sought~~in ~~are~~fact, ~~reserved~~Smart ~~for~~Win's misconduct caused many millions of dollars in damages to Empire. We intend to do our best to prove this to Justice Oing at trial."

~~Justice~~The ~~Oing~~selection ~~also~~of ~~determined~~April ~~that~~13 as the ~~2008~~firm ~~agreement~~trial ~~between~~date ~~Empire~~was ~~and~~based ~~Smart~~in ~~Win,~~part ~~while~~on itJustice ~~did~~Oing's ~~contain~~own ~~language~~established ~~relating~~schedule toin aother ~~joint~~cases ~~venture~~and ~~between~~the ~~Empire~~fact ~~and~~that Smart Win, ~~also~~intends ~~indicated~~to ~~that~~present aseveral ~~further,~~Chinese ~~more~~witnesses ~~detailed~~who ~~agreement~~would ~~was~~be ~~required~~engaged ~~for~~in alate ~~formal~~February ~~joint~~through ~~venture~~March ~~and that such an additional formal document, while prepared~~ in ~~draft,~~events ~~was~~surrounding ~~never~~the ~~executed.~~Chinese ~~Justice~~New ~~Oing~~Year ~~noted that a joint venture could arise from an oral agreement, as Mr. Batista~~ and ~~Empire~~routine ~~had~~regulatory ~~argued,~~requirements ~~but~~ that ~~under~~ the ~~relevant~~witnesses ~~original contract documents, although they referred to a "joint venture" between Smart Win~~ and ~~Empire,~~the itcompanies ~~was essential~~ that aemploy ~~further~~them ~~document~~would behave ~~executed.~~to ~~Smart Win's funding of the project stopped before that further document was finalized~~meet.

According to Mr. Batista, the judge's observation that a further written document was required before a formal joint venture was formed should not have an impact on the amount of damages Empire can attempt to prove on Empire's surviving breach of contract claim claim against Smart Win. In other words, Mr. Batista said, the damages for breach of contract, if Empire can establish that Smart Win breached the contract, would be the same as if the joint venture claim had survived.

Mr. Batista notes that nothing in today's rulings by Justice Oing can be viewed as a prediction as to whether Smart Win or Empire will prevail in whole or in part on their respective claims against each other. Now that the summary judgment motion has been resolved, Mr. Batista stresses that It is only a trial with actual witnesses and documents that will determine the claims and counterclaims.

The next status conference is scheduled for December 4, 2014. Its purpose will be to set a trial date. In response to an issue raised by Smart Win's counsel, Justice Oing refused to rule today on whether, as Mr. Batista has requested, the trial should be held in front of a jury or, as counsel for Smart Win has urged, the trial should be held solely in front of the judge himself as the trier of fact. Justice Oing said that issue could be resolved at a later date.

Contact: Malcolm Bendall

+61 3 6231 3529

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Company has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

EMPIRE ENERGY CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL

Dated: ~~November~~December 4, 2014

By: /s/ Malcolm Bendall

Mr. Malcolm Bendall

Chief Executive Officer

Filing Compare · EMPIRE ENERGY CORP