The first (1986) edition of this book has proved of considerable assistance to practitioners—complementing Summerskill on Laytime. The present edition is primarily an update—incorporating references to almost 100 new cases (both court and arbitration decisions). For that reason alone, this new edition will continue its most useful role.

However, it is perhaps a pity that the opportunity was not taken to do rather more than update; and some, at least, of the criticisms of the reviewer of the first edition (in [1988] LMCLQ 249) have not been remedied. Thus the “maddening” practice continues of giving references in the foot of the text to Lloyd’s Reports rather than the official Law Reports wherever possible. Lloyd’s Reports have been and continue to be invaluable; but they no longer include the argument, even in a summary form, and there are sometimes notable differences in the text of the printed judgments in the older cases. This omission would not be so bad if the Table of Cases included all references; but even this is not the case. Some consideration of the case law in the United States or the Commonwealth would also have been welcome. This was another of the specific requests of the reviewer of the first edition; but, the request has gone unheeded.

But these are criticisms as to what might have been; and, more generously, we should thank Mr Schofield (again) for what he has done. That there has been a near century of reported cases in the past five years demonstrates that the law in this area is a relatively fast pitch. For example, since 1985, there has been almost a complete over of cases as to the effect of the phrase “reachable on arrival”, i.e., The Ugland Obo (No. 1) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 336, The Kyzikos [1989] A.C. 1264, The Fjordaas [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 336, The Sea Queen [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 500 and The Ulyanovsk [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 425; and this virtual “test series” is duly reported (pp. 246–248). Mr Schofield expresses the view that it would be of interest to know what the House of Lords’ view was on this point. But can anyone have any real doubt?

In dealing with the new material, Mr Schofield has been a valuable fielder, hardly dropping a ball. For example, there is (at pp. 116–122) a valuable revamped discussion concerning the effect of an invalid notice of readiness having regard, in particular, to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in The Mexico I [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 507 and recent arbitration decisions; the text has been expanded (p. 313) to deal with the clutch of new cases (i.e., The Mobil Courage [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 655, The Anna Ch [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 266 and The Forum Craftsman [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 291) concerning the circumstances in which “default” by a shipowner will—or will not—affect his claim for demurrage; and at pp. 316–317 one finds a useful discussion of The John Michalos [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 188 and The Kalliopi A [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101.

One possible criticism is that, although some of the decisions in the “new” cases have been real bouncers, a casual reader of Mr Schofield’s text might miss their speed and the surprise of the crowd in the stands. For example, although Mr Schofield does deal with The Kyzikos at various points in the text, in particular over some two full pages at pp. 132–134, its treatment is generally bland. A reader might be forgiven for thinking that the ultimate decision of the House of Lords was a foregone conclusion. But it was contrary to the conclusion reached by one of London’s most experienced maritime arbitrators; and there can be few cases where judgments in the Court of Appeal (which were unanimous in supporting the decision of the