The Gazette 1995

GAZETTE

M EDIWH M ARCH1995

It is also unfortunate that nowhere in the book, either in the indices or in the detailed analysis of the English and Irish cases at the end, is there a precise reference to where in the particular chapter the reference to the Irish/English case is to be found. For example, at page 441 the reader is given a note of an interesting case of Gascoine -v- Pyrah and Cronau and is then referred to one of the most important decisions of the Court in Kalfelis -v- Schroder which is simply described as being set out in chapter 5. On turning to chapter 5 the reader is then sent to continue her search in chapter 6. That being said, there is no question but that the gathering together of the Irish and English decisions in one text, where they are given 116 pages, is extremely valuable. This book was published some time in the Autumn 1994 and is right up to date in relation to virtually all judgments up to about July 1994. Readers will note the interesting developments in the case of Shevill -v- Press Alliance [1992] 1 All ER 409 reported in Mr. Byrne's book at page 434. This case dealt with a libel action taken in England against France Soir which had a daily circulation in France of 200,000 copies but in the UK of only 230. The Defendant publisher challenged the English Court's jurisdiction. The Court made a reference for a preliminary ruling to the ECJ. Since publication of this book the Advocate General's Opinion was delivered on the 14 July 1994 and he proposed that the Court should rule as follows "In the case of defamation by a newspaper article circulated in more than one Contracting State, Article 5(3) must be interpreted as meaning that the Plaintiff may sue either in the Courts of the place of publication, which have jurisdiction to award a compensation for the whole of the damage arising from the unlawful act, or in the Courts of the places where the newspaper is distributed, which have jurisdiction solely in respect of the damagearising, according to the law applicable to the tort or delict within their judicial district".

frontiers, the Irish decisions are models of straightforward common law speak and have tended to transpose the more obtuse European Court of Justice decisions in to amenable language. For those practitioners who are familiar with the Convention, there is no doubt but that this book by Peter Byrne will be a useful addition to their library. For those who have not it is an essential purchase. Mr. Byrne's earlier text published in 1990 and entitled "The EC Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments" has been superseded by the implementation into Irish law of the Rome Contracts Convention, the Lugano Judgments Convention, the ratification of The Hague Service Conventions and, since publication of this text, the ratification of the Supplemental Rome Maintenance Judgments Convention by the Maintenance Act 1994. The layout of the book is more complex than usual and the reader would be advised to read the special section which deals with definitions and the layout of the text. The index of cases at the beginning is, for example, laid out under four categories:- - Preliminary Rulings - English Decisions on the Convention - Irish Decisions on the Convention - Other Decisions While it is interesting to see the development of Irish jurisprudence it is not quite clear what the purpose of separating the indices in this way is, or the criteria for the "Other Decisions". To an extent I would counsel against this approach (which continues in the body of the text) insofar as it is unreal to suggest that the Irish, or indeed the English cases,, can be addressed without close reference to the important decisions of the European Court. This is in essence the reservation I have about the manner in which the English and Irish decisions relating to the

European Union and Lugano Conventions on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments

By Peter Byrne; Publisher: Baikonur, 1994, 600pp. £74.

When I have lectured on the Jurisdiction and Enforcement of

Judgments Conventions, I have often commenced the lecture by pointing out what a difficult area of law this is. Not so much arising from the Irish legislation and cases but because of the difficulty that a lawyer trained in the common law system has in understanding and appreciating the continental law approach to issues. I now regret this admonition and wonder if it is this sort of approach by our profession that has led Mr. Byrne in his covering letter to the Editorial Board of this Gazette to make the comment that "It is probably fair to say that barristers are more understanding of this kind of material which is very technical and at time esoteric". It is true that the introduction of the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act 1988 was one of the few occasions that prompted the Law Library to provide lectures for their members. That being said, if Mr. Byrne's perception of the technical abilities of the respective wings of the profession is correct, this is something that must and should not be allowed to continue. I would hazard a guess that 85/95% of business clients trade outside this country whether by way of imports or exports. No-one doubts that this trend has been developing and will continue to develop. Solicitors who have to date avoided this topic cannot continue to do so. The fact of the matter is that those articles of the Convention that have exercised Irish judicial thought are relatively few and indeed are reasonably straightforward. Certainly if one has to deal with an international aspect to a claim it is much simpler to do so under the Conventions than under the more nebulous and complex area of general private international law. While not perhaps forging new

Convention are separately dealt with at Appendix N in the book which merit but cursory references in the substantive chapters.

80