The parties entered into a settlement agreement which contained clauses relating to the acquisition of another business and which obliged the defendant in these proceedings to pay the claimant a percentage of the purchase price. The 'deals' in the settlement agreement named 2 organisations who might have bought the business. The claimant was also entitled to a termination payment. The business was subsequently bought by a company of which the defendant was a director and shareholder, not the organisations defined in the deals. The defendant therefore alleged that no payment was due to the claimant. In turn the claimant did not pay the termination payment to the defendant. The claimant was seeking summary judgment against the defendant.

The court dismissed the application. On the basis of both the language of the document and business common sense, the defendant had a more than fanciful case that his interpretation of the definition of 'deals' was the correct one and the application for summary judgment was rejected.