This casebook, which was first published in 1970, is intended primarily for those studying for professional examinations. In 97 pages the editor has succeeded in covering most of the leading cases in partnership law. There has been considerable revision of the earlier work. The section on the Registration of Business Names Act 1916 has been removed and new cases added, notably Hugdell, Yates & Co. v. Watson in which the lapse of a solicitor’s practising certificate was held to have caused the dissolution of the partnership for illegality.

The text is divided into six parts. The first four parts deal with the nature of partnership, the relationship of partners inter se, the relationship of partners to outsiders and dissolution and its consequences. Part five concerns the position of receivers and includes an extract from the decision in Sobell v. Boston, in which it was held that a retiring partner is confined to remedies under ss. 42 and 43 of the Partnership Act 1890 and may not have a receiver appointed. Part six concerns limited partnerships and contains extracts from two cases.

The order of the work closely follows that of the Partnership Act 1890. Moreover, it complements the Eleventh Edition of Underhill’s Principles of the Law of Partnership, also written by Professor Ivamy. The Casebook is of particular assistance to those students for whom Underhill is the recommended text, since many of the judgments reproduced in the Casebook are specifically referred to in Underhill as worthy of special attention.

It must be stressed that this work is no more than a casebook, and indeed Professor Ivamy has never claimed it to be anything more. There has been no attempt to include other material, and the only commentary is to be found in the headings preceding each case. The headings either recite relevant sections of the Partnership Act or contain a short summary of the principle concerned. Some of the headings are identical to passages in Underhill, creating some overlap between the works, although not necessarily detracting from the value of either. However, the reviewer would be interested to see the reaction of a student who, having purchased both volumes, discovers that the only difference in the coverage of Pathirana v. Pathirana is the one sentence from the judgment of Lord Upjohn printed in the Casebook.