This issue at the heart of this case was whether a dispute resolution clause in a settlement agreement is to be construed on the basis that it supersedes a different dispute resolution clause in a prior agreement.
In dismissing the Defendant’s stay application, Andrew Lenon KC identified that there exists clear authority for the proposition that dispute resolution clauses in a settlement or termination agreement should generally be construed on the basis that they are intended to have a superseding or overriding effect.
Although this is not a hard and fast rule, where parties have agreed on a dispute resolution clause in a settlement or termination agreement, it may be readily inferred that the parties intended that the dispute resolution clause would replace and supersede such a clause in an earlier agreement.
Read the full judgment here.
Read the full case digest here; Case Digest July 2025 No. 11
