Lawrence Wong

The applicant mortgagors sought a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent mortgagee from enforcing its security against a restaurant business, arguing they were entitled to pay interest only on the loan.

The court found the chattel mortgage clearly required principal repayments and the applicants were in default.

However, the court noted the respondent's seizure of the assets was unlawful due to lack of statutory notice.

The injunction was denied as damages would be an adequate remedy, and the damages claim was dismissed without prejudice due to an insufficient evidentiary record.

The defendants brought a motion seeking enforcement of an alleged settlement agreement arising from negotiations following a trademark dispute between competing food businesses.

The plaintiffs argued that the correspondence between counsel constituted only ongoing negotiations and not a finalized settlement.

Applying principles of contract formation governing settlements, the court considered whether there was a mutual intention to create a binding agreement and whether all essential terms had been agreed upon.

The court concluded that the correspondence demonstrated continuing negotiations and unresolved essential terms, including timing for the disposal of inventory.

As there was no meeting of the minds on essential terms, no binding settlement contract was formed and there was nothing for the court to enforce.