The Gazette 1952-1955

that while solicitors were officers o f the Court and were in certain respects subject to special control by the Court, when they were themselves litigants they were 1on a par with any other litigant and neither entitled nor liable to any different treatment. {Irish Eaw Times ).— See G a z e t t e , page 31. (2) Foreign Company—Service—Procedure. Is a Plaintiff who serves a writ on an American Company at an address in Condon which he alleges is the English place o f business o f that company entitled to proceed in the action ? No, said the Court of Appeal (Jenkins, Hodson and Romer L .JJ.). The writ must be set aside, because the American Company did not have a place of business in Great Britain at the time of the alleged service. (Deverall v. Grant Advertising Incorporated (1954) 3 All E .R ., 389). (3) Judgment—Defendant’s wrong surname —Amendment. Is a plaintiff, who has obtained judgment fo r breach o f contract in England fo r £47,000 and tries to enforce same against the defendant in the German Courts, and is then fa ced with the contention that the judgment is invalid and unenforceable on the ground that a wrong surname was used, entitled to amend the writ, all subsequent proceedings andjudgment, by substituting “ Jo sef Bartels trading as Bernhard Bartels ” fo r “ Bernhard Bartels ” ? Yes, said the Court of Appeal (Denning and Hodson L .JJ.) affirming Slade J., because the substantive judgment was in no way altered by this amendment. Per Denning L .J. : “ When the substantive judgment is not being altered, but only the title of the action, it is, to my mind, quite plain that this Court has ample jurisdiction to correct any mis­ nomer or misdescription at any time whether before or after judgment.” (Pearlman Veneers S. A. Property Ltd. v. Bartels (1954) 3 All E .R ., 659). (4) Compulsory Acquisition—Lands Tri­ bunal. The decision o f Stable J., noted in page 31 of T h e G a z e t t e , was reversed by the Court of Appeal. (Denning, Jenkins and Morris L .JJ.) mainly on the grounds that the plaintiff had only six weeks from the time notice of the decision o f the Agricultural Land Tribunal to acquire her land compulsorily was given to her, to make an application to the Court to quash this decision, and the Act, which treats the decision as a compulsory purchase order, does not allow the decision to be questioned in any “ legal proceedings whatsoever ” except within six weeks of the notice being given. Furthermore, any invalid

appointments to the Tribunal became validated as a result of the rules to Schedule IX of the Agriculture Act, 1947. It is gratifying, however, to note that, despite the decision authorising compulsory acquisi­ tion, the Minister allowed Mrs. Woollett to retain her 4 acres o f land. ('Woollett v. Minister o f Agriculture and Fisheries (1954) 3 All E .R ., 529). (5) Damages—Assessment by Jury—Test for Intervention o f Appellate Court. When damages have been assessed by a ju ry, w ill an appellate Court intervene, unless the verdict is out o f all proportion with the fa cts ? No, said the Court of Appeal (Singleton, Denning and Morris L .JJ.). The question is not whether the verdict appears to the appellate Court to be right, but whether it is such as to show that the jury have failed to perform their duty. (The facts were that a red-hot rod jumped from the rollers in a factory, and came into contact with plaintiff’s left ankle, whereby he sustained serious injuries, as a result of which he would be unable to lead an active life. Although the plaintiff’s expenses including loss of earnings up to time of trial were £ 1,10 0 , a jury assessed total damages at £3,850, for which McNair J. entered judgment. The appeal was taken on the ground that the damages were most inadequate). Per Singleton L .J. : “ Though I think the damages given in this case were low, I am not able to say that the verdict was out of all proportion to the facts. It was for the jury and not for this Court to assess the damages. I f a plaintiff in a case o f this kind asks for and obtains a jury (merely to assess damages), he may expect to have some advantages, or he would not ask for a jury. There may be disadvantages also, though I am far from saying that a jury is not a proper tribunal for a case o f this kind.” (Bocock v. Enfield Rolling Mills Ltd. (1954) 3 All E .R ., 94). (6) Court o f Appeal—Grounds on which further evidence considered. In an appeal, w ill the Court allow further evidence to be adduced in regard to the evidence o f defendant's wife who stated at the trial that she did not remember whether a payment had been made by defendant to plaintiff, and who, having meanwhile divorced defendant, subsequently admitted that she did remember such payment having been made ? No, said the Court of Appeal (Denning, Hodson and Parker L .JJ.). In order to allow this further evidence to be adduced in support o f an appeal against a decision of fact, the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, and, as the evidence sought to be adduced was not o f that description, it would not be admitted; in the

57