The Gazette 1961 - 64

to continue once that control was removed by the death of the permissor. (Kelly v. Cornhill Insurance Co. Lfd. 1964. i All E.R. 321.) Licensing application. Failure to lodge plans in time with Gardai. This was an application for a declaration pursuant to section 15 (i) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960 that premises if altered or reconstructed in accordance with the proposed plan of reconstruction would be fit and convenient to be licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor subject to section 13 of the said Act which failed. The matter was first heard in the Circuit Court, where the application was refused and subsequently brought on appeal to the High Court. A notice of intention to make the appli cation referred to a plan lodged therewith. A copy of the plan was lodged with the Superintendent of the Gardai, supposed to be in compliance with section X 5 (3)' 00- Objection was taken by the ground landlord, other residents and publicans in the neigh bourhood. The Circuit Court judge refused the application on the ground that the premises were unsuitable. A new set of plans were presented at the appeal, but objection was taken that these had not been deposited with the Superintendent of the Gardai as required by section 15 (3), (c). The applicant had failed to notify the Superintendent that the plans were not similar to those lodged with the original application, furthermore they did not come to the notice of the Superintendent until after the appeal had been opened. The provisions of the section referred to are mandatory and failure to comply therewith is fatal to the application. The purpose of depositing a copy of the plan with the Gardai is to enable the Superintendent to consider the proposed alterations and assist the Court by objecting to the application in a proper case. So held by Murnaghan J. In the Matter of the Licensing Acts 1883 to 1960 and the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1960 Sections 15 & 13 and Courts of Justice Acts. Rookes v. Barnard and others The House of Lords reversing the Court of appeal and confirming the judgment of Sachs J. held that the respondents had committed the tort of intimi dation and they were not protected by the Trade Disputes Act 1906, but the House ordered a new trial on the question of the £7,500 damages only. The appellant was employed by B.O.A.C. as a skilled draftsman in the drawing office. He was a member of a Trade Union to which all employees in that office

Withholding facts from the Court In Jakeman v. Jakeman and Turner (i 964 2.W.L.R. 90) the co-respondent in a divorce case consulted a solicitor and instructed him to oppose the claim for damages against him, but the solicitor wrongly failed to do so and instead proposed a collusive bargain on the other side. Trus was rejected and at the hearing at which the co-respondent, on the solicitor's advice, did not appear and by the solicitor's fault was not represented, the husband claimed for £3,000 damages and was awarded £2,000 damages with costs against the co-respondent. On a sub sequent motion it appearing that the decision as to damages might have been different if the co-respon dent had been represented, it was held that there should be a re-hearing on this point alone and that the solicitor who had failed in his duty to both the co-respondent and the court should personally indemnify the husband against costs payable by him in respect of a petition and all costs between the co-respondent and his solicitor should be disallowed. Simon J. in his judgment stated inter atia that it was proper for solicitors to bargain about the quantum of damages payable by the co-respondent but that it was not permissible to bargain in such a way that part of the consideration is withholding from the court of material which may affect the court in the performance of its statutory duty to inquire. Kelly v. Cornhill Insurance Company Limited The House of Lords by a majority (Lords Dilhome, Reid and Morris) allowed an appeal from a decision of the Court of Session which had held that the appellant was not covered by a policy of insurance issued by the Cornhill Insurance Company Limited to his father in respect of a motor car when he was involved in an accident eight months after the death of his father, on the ground that the permission given by the insured, to his son to drive the car ceased with the death of the insured. The Lord Chancellor in his judgment stated inter alia "Permission to drive a car was consent to the use of the chattel. If a man consented to the use by another of a chattel of his for a period of six months, the use of the chattel for that period was lawful during that period and did not become unlawful in consequence of the death of the per- mittor in the course of the six months". The grounds of the minority judgment (Lords Hodson and Guest) was that permission to use a chattel is something that is revocable at any time, unless accompanied by a stipulation that it should continue for a stated period, and that the permission could not be assumed