In the Preface to the third edition of Goff & Jones’ masterly analysis The Law of Restitution, the learned authors say that “the legal profession is increasingly aware not merely of the existence but of the importance of the law of restitution”. There is now a new journal exploring the issues in this area which complements Goff & Jones and which will be greatly welcomed.

The intention of the editors is two-fold: first, to include “articles analysing and discussing matters of practical and theoretical interest” and, secondly, to “provide a comprehensive expert information service by regional reporters from major jurisdictions”. This intention is mirrored in the two main sections of the Review—”Articles” and “Regional Digest”.

In the first, two topics of considerable importance and topical interest are addressed. Sir Peter Millett considers the question of “Bribes and Secret Commissions” and concludes that the decision in Lister v. Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch.D. 1 “cannot be supported as a matter of policy, principle or authority”. Sir Peter’s analysis starts from the premise that the rationale for the doctrine is not to compensate but rather to enforce the high standards which equity demands of a fiduciary. Consideration is then given to the maxim “equity treats as done that which ought to be done” and equity’s “good man” theory of law. For confirmation that this article has provided an invaluable contribution to the development of the law in this area, one need only look to the very recent decision of the Privy Council in A.-G. for Hong Kong v. Reid (1993) 143 N.L.J. 1569 (Privy Council on appeal from the New Zealand Court of Appeal [1992] 2 N.Z.L.R. 385, considered by Birks [1993] LMCLQ 30), where Lister v. Stubbs was finally laid to rest. In the course of his speech, Lord Templeman generously acknowledged their Lordships’ indebtedness to this article.

In the second article, Richard O’Dair considers the question of “Remedies for Breach of Contract” and regrets the decision of the Court of Appeal in Surrey County Council v. Bredero Homes Ltd. [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1361, where the victim of a deliberate breach of contract was unable to claim restitution of the profits made by the contract breaker. O’Dair argues persuasively that such restitution may be necessary in order to deter persons from making a calculated decision that the amount of compensatory damages likely to be ordered is so small as to make breach profitable (a similar conclusion is reached by Birks [1993] 109 L.Q.R. 518; cf. Burrows [1993] LMCLQ 453).

Both topics discussed in the articles can be analysed further by looking to decisions and experience in other jurisdictions; and the Regional Digest is an invaluable source of such material, being both comprehensive and well organized.

On the issue of bribes, the case of Sumitomo Bank Ltd. v. Kartika Ratna Thahir [1993] 1 S.L.R. 735 (digested in the Asian Pacific section, §5), a decision of the High Court of Singapore, is particularly instructive. Although it was decided before the Reid case, Lai Kew Chai, J., also decided that Lister v. Stubbs was wrong and should not be perpetuated as part of the law of Singapore.

On the issue of damages for breach of contract, it is interesting to note that two decisions from other jurisdictions have reached opposite conclusions to that of the Court of Appeal in Bredero Homes. The Supreme Court of Israel (Ben Porath, J., dissenting) held in Adras Ltd. v. Harlow & Jones, FH 20/82 (1988) 42(1) PD 221 (applied in Cohen v. Shemesh, CA 588/87 (1991) 45(5) PD 297 (SC) digested at §173 of the Israel section) that the plaintiff was entitled