The case required consideration of the provisions on lis pendens, “related actions” and seisin in Arts 27, 28 and 30 of the EC Jurisdiction Regulation.2 Those provisions seek to ensure that the Regulation's aim to achieve free movement of judgments of the courts of the EU Member States within those states is not jeopardised by the risk of irreconcilable judgments being given by the courts of two or more EU Member States. Although the Supreme Court was unanimous in deciding that Art.27 did not apply to the claims relating to an indemnity and exclusive jurisdiction agreement, a majority, two Law Lords dissenting, held that that Art.27 did not apply to the insurers’ application for declaratory judgments that they were released from all claims in view of the full and final settlement of the claims. In light of that disagreement, the Supreme Court decided that, unless the latter claims were abandoned by the insurers, an issue on those claims should be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”). In that event further issues would arise on the interpretation of Arts 27 and 28 which should also be referred to that court. The Supreme Court was unanimous in its judgment that, if Art.28 applied, as the proceedings were “related actions”, and if the English court were second seised, they would not exercise their discretion to stay the English proceedings in light of the English jurisdiction agreements.