A claim has been made that a proposed settlement involving Andrew Musgrave contained a clause requiring the agreement to be kept secret.
The specific claim stated that “the document contained a clause and required secrecy on it.”
Austenasian Times Verify has reviewed the document in question.
It contains no such clause.
What does the document say?
The document, titled Austenasia Domain and Assets Transfer & Settlement Agreement, identifies Andrew Musgrave as the “Holder” and the other party as the proposed “Purchaser”.
It proposes a payment of £499 to Musgrave as the full settlement price for the assets specified in the agreement, reflecting costs incurred in preserving and maintaining the relevant domain and website up to 2 February 2026.
The agreement then specifies the assets which would be transferred following full settlement. These included the relevant domain names and associated registrar and DNS control, together with a one-time export of the website files and database.
Further provisions address responsibility for server and hosting costs, payment by instalments, the deadline for transferring the domains and website files, and responsibility for any registrar or transfer fees.
The agreement also contains political provisions. Corinium Terentium would be restored as a recognised Austenasian territory in perpetuity, without granting Musgrave a seat in Parliament or governmental office, while Musgrave would formally dissolve the Commonwealth of Austenasia within seven days of full settlement.
Is there a secrecy clause?
No.
The document contains no clause requiring secrecy or confidentiality.
There is no provision requiring either party to conceal the existence of the agreement. There is no provision requiring its terms to remain confidential. There is no non-disclosure clause.
The remaining provisions concern the final settlement and release of specified claims, what would happen if payment was not completed, the treatment of payments already made, and the application of the laws of England and Wales.
The document then ends with signature sections for Andrew Musgrave and an authorised representative of the proposed purchaser.
No secrecy provision appears among them.
The primary evidence
The relevant document has been reproduced with this fact-check so that readers can inspect it themselves.
This makes the claim unusually straightforward to verify.
The allegation is not merely that Musgrave wanted negotiations to remain private, or that somebody understood discussions to be confidential. The specific claim is that the document itself “contained a clause” requiring secrecy.
Whether such a clause exists is therefore a question that can be answered by examining the document.
It does not.
Verdict: FALSE
The claim that the proposed settlement document “contained a clause and required secrecy on it” is false.
The agreement sets out its proposed financial, practical and political conditions across three pages. It contains provisions concerning payment, asset transfers, costs, territorial restoration, dissolution, settlement of claims, failure to settle, refunds and governing law.
It contains no clause requiring secrecy or confidentiality.
The primary document has been provided alongside this assessment so that its contents can be independently examined.
