Vincent Ng J:

Before the case commenced I felt that there were several apparent issues of procedure that needed to be settled. Firstly, to the question from the court on the procedure employed by the plaintiff, the defendants - quite rightly I must observe - conceded that as the determination of the case primarily involves construction of a document (to wit the settlement agreement) the plaintiff had appropriately proceeded under originating summons. Secondly, when the court indicated that in order to obviate double hearings, appeals, judgments and bites at the proverbial cherry, I was ready and minded to proceed straight to hear the originating summons, subject of course to the consent of both parties, in view of O. 38 r. 2(3) of the RHC (pertaining to right to apply to cross-examine the deponents of affidavits) both parties insisted on the court hearing the summons in chambers first. And so, as agreed, the proceedings proceeded in such manner.

For ease of reading I would propose to divide my judgment into three parts, namely, the facts, the merits of the plaintiff's injunction application, and lastly, the validity or legal integrity and construction of s. 72 of the Pengu