The Gazette 1964/67

Special travel arrangements have been made with G.I.E., whereby people travelling by train will be able to obtain the return ticket for the single ticket rate. Hotel bookings will be handled by Dermot Moloney of the Southern Law Associ ation, at 44 South Mall, Cork. Bookings will commence on the 1st September and close on 10th October. Full details and registration forms will be sent to all solicitors by post. As it is anti cipated that the attendance will be double that of Mullingar, those intending to participate should book early. OUT OF DATE JURY SYSTEM Lord Parker when addressing officers passing out from the senior staff course in Basingstoke, stated that under the present system far too many guilty men were discharged, and this was largely- due to the jury system. He expressed the opinion that many were of opinion that the jury stystni had outlived its usefulness. He said that there was much to be said for giving a man's previous convictions during a case and not withholding them until or unless he was convicted. Speaking of the composition of juries he stated that at one session 15 per cent of the jury were found to have had criminal convictions. He added : "I some times wonder how anyone gets convicted." PRACTICE DIRECTION The Hon. Mr. Justice Murnaghan has given the following practice direction : — A. The following practice shall be observed hence forth in applications for approval of settle ments in which infants are involved in order to avoid the disclosure in open court of the strength or weakness of the plaintiff's case. 1. That where there shall be exhibited in the grounding affidavit: (a) a short opinion on the issue of liability of the one of the counsel retained on behalf of the plaintiff containing a concise statement of the reasons for such opinion; (b) plain typed copies of manuscript re ports bv doctors or surgeons (with the originals). 2. No such opinion or report shall be read aloud in Court at the hearing of the ap plication. B. If the plaintiff seeks the Court's decision as to whether a sum lodged in Court by the de­

fendant should be accepted, or the action should go to trial, or waiver by the defendant of notice of acceptance of the lodgment should be proved at the hearing. An application may be made so that the appropriate ancillary directions may be given by the Court at such hearing in the event of a decision that such sum should be accepted. — The Irish Law Times and Solicitors journal, June 27th, 1964. CASES OF THE MONTH Contract—Fundamental Breach The respondents agreed in December 1965 to charter a vessel from the appellants for the car riage of coal from the United States to Europe, the charter to remain in force "for a total of two years consecutive voyages/' The vessel was to sail and proceed "with all possible dispatch" to a port in the United States and there load on each voyage a cargo of coal and being so loaded, pro ceed "with all possible dispatch" to a port in Europe. Demurrage of 1,000 dollars a day was payable for detention beyond the days fixed for loading and unloading. In September 1957 the appellants considered themselves entitled to treat the charterparty as repudiated by reason of delays in loading and unloading, but it was agreed that the contract should continue without prejudice to the dispute. The appellants claim to be entitled to freight for nine, or alternatively six, additional voyages which they said the vessel should have completed less demurrage payments received. The respondents claimed that their liability was limited to the demurrage payments. The appellants main tained that the delays amounted to a fundamental breach entitling them to treat the contract as repudiated and that the demurrage provisions therefore did not apply. Held by the House of Lords that there is no rule of law that no exceptions clause can excuse a fundamental breach of contract or breach of a fundamental term. The expression "fundamental breach" means neither more nor less than the type of breach which entitles the innocent party to treat the contract as repudiated. On the facts of the case, assuming there was a fundamental breach, the appellants had elected to affiirm the contract and their claim was limited to the agreed sums for demurrage. Karsaces Co. v Wallis (156) Reversed. (Suisse Athlantique Societe D'Arment Maiit- time S.A. v N.V. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale (1966) 2 W.L.R. 944; 2 All E.R. 61). 33