The Gazette 1958-61

action against the Attorney-General and two police officers. for malicious prosecution, trespass and unlawful detention of their goods, negligence, alternatively for conspiracy, and libel. The action arose out of charges preferred against the plaintiffs under the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934. McNair, J. held, dismissing the action, that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their case. (D.C.) The Times, April i, 1960. In Corder v. Banks (April 8, 1960), McNair, J., held that a plastic surgeon who performed an operation on a patient's eyelids, who allowed his patient to go home after the operation, and who failed to make proper arrangements for receiving telephone messages from the patient in the event of bleeding taking place during the first forty-eight hours after the operation, was thereby guilty of professional negligence. (D.C.) See also The Times, April 9, 1960. Tort—conspiracy. In Auten v. R.iyner (April 28, 1960) A. brought two actions : the first against R. and Mrs. R. and a detective-sergeant of the Metropolitan and City Fraud Department for damages for conspiracy to cheat and injure him, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, malicious institution of civil proceedings and injurious falsehoods ; the second against a firm of accountants and one of their employees for damages for conspiracy to cheat and injure him and for breach of duty as his accountants. Glyn-Jones, J., held that A. had failed to prove his case in both of the two, consolidated, actions. (D.C.) The Times, April 29, 1960. Medical practitioner — failure to arrange for telephone messages. Trade Unions—exclusion of member—proceed ings against member—contravention of union rule;,. In Payne v. Electrical Trades Union (April 13, 1960) a union purported to exclude a member from membership of the union. In an action by the member, for a declaration that he was still a member of the union, Ashworth, J., held, giving judgment for the member, that in the proceedings against the member the union had committed serious contra ventions of the union rules, for which no satisfactory explanation had been offered, and that the member's purported exclusion was accordingly null and void. (D.C.) See also The Times, April 14, 1960. 20

the Home Secretary, who claimed Crown privilege, on the ground of public policy. In addition to an application by the plaintiff for the unsealing of the entries, a subpoena was served on the Director of Public Prosecutions requiring him to produce documents in his possession relevant to the action. Held that, both the detective's notes and the docu ments in the possession of the Director were privileged : Auten v. Rayner (No. 2), (1960) 2. W.L.R. 562 ; (1960) i All E.R. 692 Glyn-Jones, J. Discovery—Information within knowledge of firm employed by plaintiff. (Can.) In Canadian Utilities v. Mannix and London Guarantee & Accident Co. (1959) 20 D.L.R. (ad) 654, the Alberta Supreme Court held that information within the knowledge of an engineering »firm which the plaintiff had hired to draw up plans for a dam and to supervise its construction must be disclosed. Agency — commission — introduction of person prepared to enter into a contract. In Ackroyd & Sons v. Hasan (April 12, 1960) estate agents were instructed by the defendant to sell her premises. In confirming the agreement, the estate agents wrote " in the event of our introduction of a party prepared to enter into a contract to purchase . . . you will allow us commission." The estate agents introduced a prospective purchaser prepared 'to enter into a binding contract, but before contracts were ex changed, negotiations broke down and the sale was never completed. The Court of Appeal (Sellers Ormerod and Upjohn, L.JJ.), dismissing an appeal from Winn J. (1959) C.L.Y. 14), held that the estate agents were not entitled to their commission. (D. C.) The Times, April 29, 1960. 1960) the husband had been guilty of contempt by kidnapping the child of the parties in breach of a perpetual injunction not to molest the child. The wife had custody and the marriage had been dis solved. As the whereabouts of husband and child were unknown, and it was feared that the husband might take the child to Ireland, application for his committal was made exparte. Stevenson, J., made an order for his committal (J. B. G.) The Times, April 27, 1960. Infants, Children and Young Persons—abduction —contempt. In Bottomley v. Bottomley (April 26,

Malicious Prosecution and False Imprisonment— malicious prosecution. In McKay v. Attorney- General (March 31, 1960) plaintiffs brought an