“ It is to be observed that the rule states that it is only to have application in circumstances where:
“… a plaintiff has obtained a judgment against the defendant”
and where the judgment is:
“… in an amount of less than $500,000”.
 The terms of settlement did not include any judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, but on the contrary, expressed the agreement of the parties that there be a verdict for the defendants, and that there be, in effect, an order that the defendants were to pay Zandata the sum of $441,500.
 The correspondence between the parties prior to agreement upon the terms of settlement, make plain the solicitors’ concerns. In a letter from Gilchrist Connell of 12 March 2012, they said:
“We enclose proposed terms of settlement. In relation to Order 1, we propose that there be a verdict for the defendants, rather than simply a dismissal of the proceedings, because there may be some doubt as to whether Order 5 is effective as a release of our clients. However, as an alternative, our client is happy for Order 1 to be merely a dismissal of the proceedings if your client is willing to execute a suitable deed of release”.
 The ultimate agreement was on terms which provided a verdict for the defendants.
 The Offer of Compromise which was dated 1 February 2012, did not include any reference to a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Zandata, but rather, as indicated earlier, simply stated:
“the defendants offer to compromise the claim made by the plaintiff by paying the sum of $421,500 exclusive of costs.”
 In those circumstances, the precondition for the application of r 42.34 namely, the existence of a judgment in an amount of less than $500,000 has not been established. The rule relied upon by the solicitors to support their submission does not do so.”
In the present case, the condition precedent for the operation of rule 42.34 of UCPR did not exist, namely a judgment in the amount of less than $500,000.00, hence, its provisions to the plaintiff’s case were irrelevant. The defendant’s submissions based upon this rule ought to have been rejected.