The first edition of this book was published in 1985. Professor Jackson has now produced a much more substantial book. It is a major and much needed work which will be of inestimable value to students, practitioners and judges alike. As one who was previously in the second of those categories and who is now in the third, and who has the great privilege of being the present Admiralty Judge, I have read the professor’s book with some trepidation lest it be full of criticisms of my recent endeavours in one or other or both capacities. There are indeed passages which contain less than wholehearted support for some of my views. They are, however, always well thought out and constructive, although I may perhaps be forgiven if I do not say here whether I agree with them or not.

The book will be of particular value because there is no other work which provides such a comprehensive portrayal of all aspects of the enforcement of maritime claims. The need for a work of this kind is emphasized by a point made by Professor Jackson at the outset. In jurisdictions where the law is to be found in codes, rules of provisional remedy, rules of jurisdiction on the merits and rules relating to security are set out in a logical order. In English law, on the other hand, we are not, as he puts it, “blessed with this logic”. The three aspects of provisional remedy, jurisdiction on the merits and preferred claims are inextricably intermingled between statute, rules of court and judicial decision and our “terminology is heavy with confusion between the three”. He identifies the use of the word “lien” as the particular culprit in generating this confusion. I agree and (as they say in the Court of Appeal) have nothing to add. That is because Professor Jackson spends the next 651 pages (excluding the appendices) unravelling the mysteries. He also regrets the fact that there is no comprehensive code dealing with all these matters, although I am bound to say that the prospect of such a code being enacted here seems to me to be very remote.

It is perhaps the absence of a code which makes Professor Jackson’s book so valuable. A good example is the way in which he discusses the various heads of Admiralty jurisdiction set out in s. 20 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Although that section is based upon the 1952 Arrest Convention, it is also derived from the heads of jurisdiction which have been developed in England over very many years—at least since the Admiralty Court Act 1840. That is because the 1952 Convention was based upon the traditional heads of jurisdiction conferred upon the Admiralty Court in England. This means that the book’s analysis of the heads of jurisdiction in s. 20 by reference not only to the wording of each paragraph but also to the case law on its predecessors rewards study.

Professor Jackson includes an analysis of the traditional English approach equating the procedure of commencement of an action with the substantive power to adjudicate upon it, as compared with the approach which was at one time more common elsewhere in which an action may be commenced for security in support of a substantive claim in another jurisdiction. He notes the growing importance of the impact of international Conventions upon the enforcement of maritime claims. If my recent experience is anything to go by, the relationship between the jurisdiction of the