Despite the Court of Appeal`s decision to extend the exceptions to the rule to pre-contractual negotiations without prejudice, the issue remained uncertain due to a very different judgment by Lord Justice Ward. The issue was settled by appeal to the Supreme Court, where it was unanimously established that pre-contractual settlement negotiations were permitted to „determine the true construction of the agreement within its factual matrix or surrounding circumstances.“ If you need advice on a dispute and the terms of a settlement agreement, please call me for a non-binding and confidential interview. In the same Greek proceedings, Starlight and OME sued not only the insurers and underwriters cited, but also their collaborators, individual sub-authors, a law firm and individual lawyers, as well as a law firm, including named persons (third parties). Flaux J had to decide whether these rights were contrary to the settlement agreements. The dispute over this matter began in 2009, when Oceanbulk argued against TMT for non-compliance with a settlement agreement it had entered into to settle TMT`s outstanding debts to Oceanbulk. In the course of the oral proceedings, TMT attempted, in its defence, to rely on the prejudiced negotiations which led to the settlement agreement in order to interpret the importance of the terms of the contract. Therefore, the settlement agreement has also been infringed vis-à-vis third parties and third parties are entitled to a right to a similar finding. Penalties for breach of the transaction The applicants argued that the execution of the settlement agreement on the sale of the property mortgaged by Ennis, and not by other means, was at issue. Ennis claimed that at no time during the transaction negotiations was there any indication that the settlement agreement depended on the sale of the mortgaged real estate, which was not mentioned in the settlement agreement itself.
The McKennas argued that, given the thorough knowledge of their financial affairs, Ennis could only know that Ennis knew that a necessary element of what had been agreed for the implementation of the transaction was a sale by mortgage borrowers in possession of the mortgaged real estate. Counsel for the applicants cited Tradax against the Irish Grain Board  ILRM 471 and the circumstances in which a court may involve a name and found that a court could involve a name to correct an intrinsic clerical error. The applicants asked the Court to include that requirement in the settlement agreement in order to give it commercial efficiency. This decision shows that, in general, a well-worded „global clause“ – which does not seem to be included in the agreement in this case – is useful for the construction of an agreement. Full contractual clauses are intended to prevent parties to a written agreement from asserting claims made during contract negotiations that are not included in the final agreement. Despite this, it is preferable to avoid gaps in the wording, since a complete contractual clause does not necessarily prevent the Tribunal from fulfilling it – referring to the usual rules of interpretation. B for example. B in interpreting the clauses in an agreement, the courts would not be content to analyse the courts in isolation. TMT argued that communication between the parties during negotiations without prejudice should be permitted by an „interpretative exception“ to the prejudice rule where the communications (i) are part of the factual matrix or surrounding circumstances; and (ii) would be eligible, but without prejudice, as an aid to the establishment of a settlement agreement. . . .