Lord Bingham`s “precautionary principle” did not assist the claimant in taking into account the broad wording of the settlement agreement. This form is a settlement agreement and authorization that can be used in a district court proceeding. It contains drafting notes and optional clauses, considering that the Contracting Parties recall the terms of their agreement by recalling the terms of their agreement and that they wish to do so in this document; and commentary: The narrowness and limitation of the original litigation concerning attorneys` fees, as well as the difference in value between the original dispute and the subsequent right to infringement and negligence, might lead the unwise to believe that an agreement settling the former would not cover the latter. The decision stresses the need to carefully consider the wording of the release clause and the definition of harm when entering into a settlement. Parties should be aware that a wide-scope agreement may affect their ability to assert rights unknown in the future. The applicant acquired the company`s claim from the liquidators and sought to bring an action against the defendant for breach and negligence in the context of the legal advice relating to the acquisition of shares. The Tribunal was asked to consider whether the settlement agreement on the unpaid invoice should be interpreted in such a way that it had settled the present claim. Furthermore, the Court`s explanatory memorandum states that, in this context, few complainants can invoke the `precautionary principle` when their agreement is generalised.