This is a very good book. It is almost inevitably an essential purchase for any substantial commercial practice, using the word “commercial” in its widest sense (and, ideally, is a book which ought to be readily at hand within any legal practice, in case a Mareva or Anton Piller issue should suddenly arise—as, given the nature of these orders, they are prone to do—with the need for urgent and immediate consideration). Equally, this is a book which any substantial academic law library must acquire.

The Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order have been judicially described as “the law’s two ‘nuclear’ weapons”. Ough and Flenley’s book is a well-written account of the “nuclear proliferation” associated with the Mareva jurisdiction in recent years, all the way up to worldwide Mareva injunctions, and the trend towards “nuclear disarmament” in the Anton Piller jurisdiction during the same period, with ever increasing restrictions on the grant of the order appearing in the case law. Part I of the book, dealing with the nature of the two orders, has an introductory chapter in which such recent developments are recounted. There are then two substantial chapters, each dedicated to one of the two orders, detailing the main principles of law affecting the order in question. A further chapter follows on ancillary orders that can be associated with either order. Part II of the book deals with procedural and evidential aspects of an application for the orders. Part III focuses upon the position of the defendant faced with the grant of either order, explaining in some detail the courses available. Part IV of the book provides “quick summaries, synopses, and precedents”, which should be invaluable to busy practitioners. There are then useful appendices setting out the texts of various key legal sources.

The structure of the book, and the fact that it is well cross-referenced, make it easy to handle. The book is also clear, readable, and—in general—thorough. Indeed, it is difficult to find anything to criticize about the book. There are perhaps a few omissions. Thus, although the cases on the jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunctions are faithfully rehearsed, there is not the criticism of them that the present reviewer is on record as having suggested they clearly