One might ask, why does private international law exist at all? Why should not an English court assume jurisdiction over any case which is referred to it? There are two answers to this. First, a great injustice might be done to a foreigner, who is abroad and who has not agreed to submit to the English court a dispute arising from a transaction which is unconnected with England, by summoning him before that court and so placing him in the dilemma that either he has to incur the inconvenience and expense of coming here to defend his interests or he has to run the risk of a judgment being given against him in his absence and so putting in peril assets he may posses here. The second is that the assumption of jurisdiction and determination of rights might well be a waste of effort, in particular if it results in making orders affecting property abroad which the court has no means of enforcing.

A more difficult question to answer is, why should an English court ever apply foreign laws? Why should it not always apply English law? After all, the parties have come before an English, not a foreign, court. English lawyers and judges know English law; at any rate they know it better than they know foreign laws. It may be difficult for the English court to discover satisfactorily what the relevant rule of foreign law is.