As Lord Denning once remarked: “The Common Market has brought many changes, one of them is the recognition that the legal systems of other countries have their merits too and we must learn to live with them.” The entry into force of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 and the continuing judicial development of the doctrine of forum non conveniens have produced such a complex series of rules that even the specialist practitioner may be forgiven for feeling a little bewildered. The non-specialist general litigation lawyer, who is faced with the occasional dispute involving a “foreign element” will be in need of some simple guidance as to where to begin proceedings. This book has the self-proclaimed aim of bridging the gap between general works on civil litigation practice and specialist texts on the conflict of laws. The title page reveals that no less than seven specialist contributors have had a hand in the book’s preparation. The general editor is to be congratulated on welding those contributions into such a coherent and well organized whole. The first chapter, which contains a general outline of the jurisdictional regime and introduces the beginner to the problems posed by trans-national litigation, is a model of clarity. The following chapters logically set out the differing rules for jurisdiction and enforcement under the 1968 Brussels Convention, under the 1982 Act as between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and as regards the rest of the world. These are followed by chapters dealing with: Foreign Currency Claims, State and Diplomatic Immunity, Admiralty Jurisdiction, Arbitration Awards, Matrimonial and Family Proceedings, Service of Process, Evidence and Legal Aid.

The discussion of service of process outside the jurisdiction sets out clearly the cases where leave is required pursuant to R.S.C., Ord. 11, and those where by virtue of the 1982 Act leave is not required. There is a reasonable summary of the circumstances in which the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies and where instead Arts. 21–23 of the 1968 Convention apply. Unfortunately the discussion of the principles in the Spiliada case [1987] A.C. 460 is, in the view of this reviewer, somewhat confusing (p. 50). Perhaps it would have been better simply to set out Lord Templeman’s summary of the speech of Lord Goff, rather than re-paraphrasing it. Is it correct to say that, “if the Court is satisfied that there is another available forum which is prime facie the appropriate forum for the trial of the action, the burden will then shift to the plaintiff to show that there are special circumstances by reason of which justice requires that the trial should nevertheless take place in this country”? There is no indication given to the uninitiated reader of the extent to which appellate courts have been prepared to interfere with the exercise of a judge’s discretion in the matter of granting leave, notwithstanding Lord Templeman’s strictures that they should not do so in The Spiliada. A subsequent edition will no doubt analyse the post-Spiliada case law and reveal that actually about one in three of the appeals to the Court of Appeal (pace Lord Templeman) have been successful. A footnote refers to the decision in Attorney-General v. Arthur Anderson & Co., The Times, 13 October 1987 (since affirmed by the Court of Appeal, [1987] E.C.C. 224).This