The Gazette 1958-61

in very special cases, when the facts are such as to justify an order being made. On a notice served by landlord under s. 30 (i) (/) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, determining a tenancy of business premises and stating that they intended to reconstmct the premises, the tenants applied to the court by originating summons for a new tenancy. The tenants filed an affidavit disputing the landlord's intention to reconstruct and the Master adjourned the summons into court to be tried on oral evidence-in-chief which would be cross-examined. The tenants applied for discovery of a large number of documents. Held that in the circumstances discovery, bearing on the question whether the landlords had a firm and settled intention of reconstructing would be ordered : Wine Shippers (London) v. Bath House Syndicate (1960) i W.L.R. 613; 1048.J.490; (1960) 2 A11E.R. 511, Buckley J. Dentists—infamous and disgraceful conduct. (Dentists Act, 1957, j-j. 25, 29.) To make good a charge of " infamous or dis graceful conduct in a professional respect " under s. 25 of the Dentists Act, 1957, in relation to such a matter as the keeping of the prescribed dental records it is not enough to show that some mistake has been made through carelessness or inadvertence in two or three cases out of some hundred patients treated during the period in which the mistakes occurred, whether the carelessness or inadvertence consisted in some act or omission by the dentist himself or in his ill-advised delegation of the making of the relevant entries to a nurse or reception ist and omitting to check the forms to see that she had done as she was told. To make such a charge good there must (generally speaking) be some element of moral turpitude or fraud or dishonesty in the conduct complained of, or such persistent and reckless disregard of the dentist's duty in regard to records as can be said to amount to dishonesty for this purpose. The question is to some extent one of degree. The Disciplinary Committee of the General Dental Council found a dentist, registered under the Dentists Act, 1957, guilty of infamous or disgraceful conduct in a professional respect in overcharging for and wrongful certification of treatment of National Health Service patients. The committee ordered that his name should be erased from the Register. Held, allowing the dentist's appeal, that on the facts the case of overcharging fell short of the degree of culpability required, nor could the wrongful certification amount to infamous or disgraceful conduct. Felix v. General Dental Council (1960) 2 W.L.R. 934; 104 S.J. 446; (1960) 2 All E.R. 391, P.C.

nominee company and the appointment of an agent to deliver a deed already sealed must itself be under seal if it were to be valid. (2) If a deed is delivered to an agent (not authorised by deed delivered) on the footing that it was not to become binding on the grantor until certain instructions had been fulfilled, and if the instructions are revocable so that the deed could be recalled at any time before delivery, then there was not delivery of the deed by the grantor either as an escrow or at all; accordingly as the branch manager's instructions were revocable, the deed of appointment did not become binding as the deed of the nominee company when he fulfilled them. (3) The deed of appointment could not be regarded as an appointment under hand validly made on behalf of the nominee company because there was no evidence that the directors, when they put their names to the deed, were authorised to do any other thing than witness the affixing of the deed of the nominee company to the deed of appointment, which, being on its face a deed, could not, therefore, be treated as an instrument under hand. (Windsor Refrigerator Company, Ltd. and another v. Branch nominees Ltd. and others (1960. 2. All E.R. 568).) Certiorari—costs — mistake of justices. It is not the general practice to award costs against a party who has not appeared to resist an application for an order of certiorari. Justices convicted the defendant of a driving offence at the close of the prosecution's case. The defendant applied for an order of certiorari. Held, allowing the application and quashing the conviction, that the defendant would not be granted costs, since the justices had acted under a pure mistake, and since the prosecution had not appeared to resist the application : R. v, Liverpool Justices ex p. Roberts (1960) i W.L.R. 585 ; 104 S.J. 450; (1960) 2 All E.R. 384^, B.C. Covenant not to assign—unreasonable refusal—claim for damages. In Rendall v. Roberts & Stacey (1959) 175 E.G. 265, where a lessee covenanted not to assign without the previous consent of the lessor " but so that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld to an assignment of the whole of the demised premises to a respectable or responsible person," Salmon J. held that although there had been an unreasonable refusal the lessee was not entitled to damages. Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954— new lease—recon struction — discovery. (Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954. s. 30 (i) (/)). Discovery in proceedings in the Chancery Division by originating summons ought only to be ordered