In various places the Judgments Regulation1 refers to actions which it is expedient to hear and determine together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. It utilizes this concept to deal with jurisdiction over co-defendants,2 but only as long as one defendant is being sued in the courts of his domicile, and it uses it to provide a definition of related actions which may be stayed or dismissed by reference to prior proceedings pending before another court.3 But because the Regulation does not allow special jurisdiction to be asserted on the bare basis that the claim is connected to one over which a court does have jurisdiction, it may sometimes happen that connected claims, which ought to be tried together in order to prevent the risk of irreconcilable judgments, will not be. Some will consider that, when this happens, the Regulation has fallen short of the goal it should set for itself. The important question is how to deal with cases which ought to be tried together but which fall close to the edge of the jurisdictional rule which would permit this to happen.