The moving parties (respondents in the main action) sought to enforce a settlement agreement or have it declared void ab initio, arguing the responding parties (applicants in the main action) failed to fulfill their obligation to withdraw criminal proceedings in Iran and remove Interpol Red Notices.
The court interpreted the agreement using the principles from Sattva, finding the responding parties only agreed to request the withdrawal and cooperate, as they lacked the authority to compel the independent Iranian Prosecutor or Interpol.
The court rejected expert evidence claiming the responding parties were Iranian government-controlled entities capable of commanding such actions.
The motion was dismissed, and the responding parties were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.
