The correctness standard of appellate review applies to a trial judge's finding as to whether parties intended to be immediately bound by a settlement agreement, because although the exercise is evaluative, there is but one correct answer. Where parties at a mediation agree on all key terms and one party expresses satisfaction that the dispute is resolved, the starting point is that the parties likely intended to be immediately bound, even if no written terms were executed on the day. The common practice of reducing mediation settlements to writing is a matter of prudence, not a legal requirement, and failure to follow that practice does not compel a conclusion that the parties did not intend to be bound. Post-mediation correspondence using the expression 'in principle' is equivocal and carries limited weight, particularly where only one party's solicitors used the term.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.