Is Rule 11 sufficient to deal with a more complex factual situation at the Bar?

Viewing the agreement as a whole there are procedures for dealing with more complex factual situations. These procedures basically provide for arbitration proceedings to be initiated. All parties in the instant case have waived recourse to arbitration. In the result and viewing the agreement as a whole I am satisifed that Rule 11 does not cover the precise fact situation in the instant case. If the parties to the agreement wished to set up specific rules which would apply to all accident situations then they should indicate that intent with clear words. I am unable to find any indication that in the instant case the agreement was intended to cover the more complex factual situation at the Bar. As stated in Wigton v. Ratke (supra), the agreement was intended to settle disputes of common motor vehicle accident claims. Those would be of the type set out in the chart and it therefore follows that the agreement was not intended to settle all sets of circumstances but only the common type. In my view, this situation could hardly be classified as the common type and the agreement is not in effect. Order accordingly