After the failure of three generating units at a generating station N made a claim on the policy for over USD 5 million for the cost of repairs and over USD 24 million for the cost of replacement power. F and other insurers settled the claim in respect of one generating unit but proceedings followed because there was a dispute as to whether the failure of the generating units constituted a single occurrence, as N claimed, or two or three occurrences, as the underwriters claimed. N had then settled with the primary insurers under the settlement agreement. F submitted that the phrase "without prejudice settlement" in the reinsurance policy meant a settlement that was not full and final, in that it reserved to one or both parties the right to re-open the settlement or to raise further argument in respect of the claim being settled, and that the settlement agreement in the instant case was not such a settlement because it was a full and final settlement. C submitted that the settlement agreement itself stated expressly in the preamble that the agreement was made "without prejudice to or waiver of the parties' respective provisions" and that the proper meaning of the phrase "without prejudice settlement" in the reinsurance contract was that of a settlement where the liability of the underwriters was not admitted.