That was not the judges opinion it was part of his discussion of the case. His ruling was clear - there was an ambiguity in the contract and he showed how 2 consecutive sub-clauses could be interpreted in a conflicting manner, one that did give Smart Win the right to turn off funding and the other which appeared to contradict that.
Judge Oing's only opinion was that there was a factual issue in his mind and therefore a trial was needed to resolve the issue, hence that branch of the summary judgement was denied. The judge further ruled that a JV could no come into existence without a further set of documents being signed by both parties and as that never happened there was no JV and he therefore awarded summary judgement to Smart Win on 2 out of 3 of EEGC's counter claims.
The erroneous interpretation of what Judge Oing actually ruled is underpinning the false hope that is being expressed in order to mislead investors into believing that the settlement is some how favourable to EEGC.
Please quote the section of the transaction documents that refers to spigots and how they can be turned on / off.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
