Furthermore, the case does not, on a strict reading, constitute a breach of parliamentary sovereignty. The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was not a purposeful and direct conflict with EC law, but was instead an attempt to give effect to the fishing quotas required under EC law. Therefore, the courts were not striking down a domestic Act of Parliament, but were instead attempting to interpret legislation in a manner compatible with the Treaty obligations that arise under the European Communities Act 1972 (as proposed by Lord Diplock in the case of "Garland v British Rail Engineering"). It remains to be seen how the courts would respond to an Act of Parliament intentionally contradicting EC law. However, in the case of "Macarthys v Smith", Lord Denning suggested that, should such an event occur, the courts would be obliged to obey the domestic law over the European.