To have returned to the publishers the proofs of a book of 619 pages on Admiralty Law and Practice only to learn that the House of Lords in Republic of India v. India SS. Co. Ltd (The Indian Endurance; The Indian Grace) (No. 2) [1998] A.C. 878; [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 had chosen to review the nature of the Admiralty action in rem must have been exceedingly frustrating. The author’s thoughts must have strayed to the possible shape of a supplement or second edition even before the first edition had been published.

The first chapter, not unnaturally, is an introduction to admiralty jurisdiction. It focuses upon the nature of an action in rem and its advantages and compares it with the action in personam. The author fully explains the personification and procedural theories of the action in rem and notes the weaknesses of each. The House of Lords will welcome the author’s observation that in English law the personification theory has declined and that the procedural theory is in the ascendancy but will or ought to be troubled by the author’s (justified) comment that neither theory can satisfactorily explain all the features of the action in rem and that the lack of an all embracing theory means that some very basic conceptual questions remain unanswered. The House of Lords has now, it seems, stamped its approval upon the procedural theory. To what extent those basic conceptual questions can now be answered remains to be seen. It is possible (because it has happened in the past) that the courts of one country will give different answers from those given by the courts of another country. What is clear is that when future commentators review the learning on this area of the law they will have to add the name Toh Kian Sing to those of Marsden, Williams and Bruce, Roscoe, Price, Wiswall and Thomas. I look forward to reading this introductory chapter in the second edition when the author will have had to grapple with the effects of the House of Lords’ decision.

However, notwithstanding the decision of the House of Lords in The Indian Grace this book is a most valuable contribution to admiralty law and practice. Its very length is a testament to the complexity of the subject. It seeks to cover every category of legal problem which can arise in connection with admiralty procedure. Thus, there is discussion of the claims which fall within the admiralty jurisdiction (Chap. 2), of the manner in which the admiralty jurisdiction is invoked (Chap. 3), of the procedure both before and after arrest (Chaps 4–5), of the nature and categorization of maritime liens (Chap. 6), of possessory liens (Chap. 7), and in particular how clashes between those with maritime liens and those with possessory liens are resolved (for which many admiralty practitioners will be grateful, for it is a subject difficult to research), of statutory rights of action in rem (Chap. 8), priorities (Chap. 9, which seeks to discern the principles which underlie this obscure but most important area of admiralty law), actions in personam (Chap. 10), limitation periods (Chap. 11), limitation of liability (Chap. 12) and forum selection (Chap. 13). This list of topics will indicate the value of the book to practitioners.

However, it is the citation of authorities from Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and England which struck this reviewer. The admiralty law and