The Gazette 1964/67

tered post and a certificate of delivery, purporting to be signed by him was produced at the hearing of the information before the Justices, but his signature was not identified, nor was the certificate of delivery put in documentary form to him when he gave evidence to see whether he identified or acknowledged it. The defendant denied that he, or any agent of his, had received the notice and it did not appear that he was cross-examined or challenged on that assertion. The justices were of opinion that since the notice was posted by pre paid A.R. registered post properly addressed to the defendant as evidenced by the Post Office delivery receipt, service of it was effected in accor dance with Section 214 (i) (c) of the 1962 Act and they convicted the defendant. The defendant appealed. James J., said that since the requirements of Section 214 (i) (c) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, had been complied with, the enforcement notice had been duly served and the defendant rightly convicted. An enforcement notice was not notice of a forthcoming event, such as the hearing of the appeal or an intended prosecution under the Road Traffic Acts, and proof of its receipt was not necessary to support proceedings for non-compliance, provided that a reasonable time was given between the date of its posting and the date by which compliance with i.'s terms was required. Lord Parker, C.J., and Marshall J., agreed. Appeal dismissed. [Moody v. Godstone Rural District Council, Solicitors' Journal, Friday 9th September 1966 (Vol. 110) p. 687, the case coming before the Queen's Bench Division on 5th May 1966 and a case stated by the Surrey Justices Sitting at Dorking] Safe System of Work The plaintiff, a dock worker, was employed in stacking some bundles of plywood. The system adopted by the gang of which he was a member was to build a stock of three bundles horizontally, and then lean further bundles against the stack. Some of the stacks slipped and he was injured. He claimed damages for negligence from his em ployers, alleging that the system of working was unsafe. It was held that the action failed. Although it might have been possible to have built the stack higher, and so have provided a firmer support for the other bundles, the gang thought it was un necessary to do so. It was therefore not a negligent act on their part, and was shown that it had been the cause of the collapse. [Kelly v. Manchester Ship Channal, I.L.T.R. & S.J. (Vol. C) p. 308]. Ill

2. That if the fractured clavicle had been plea ded, the defendants would probably have lodged £1,500 with their defence and that if the case had proceeded to trial before the same jury, with the fracture of the clavicle taken into account as one of the items of injury, the jury would probably have awarded the plaintiff £1,335 damages; 3. That, accordingly, the plaintiff had lost an estimated sum of £100 through the failure of the defendants to perform their contracts with her and she was therefore entitled to a decree for £100 against them both. [Margaret McGrath v Patrick Kiely and Michael Powell (1965) I.R. p. 497]. Solicitors' Letters Enquiries have been received by the Society from time to time from solicitors regarding the practice to be observed when handing over docu ments to a colleague pursuant to the authority of a client. The following appears to be the legal position in the matter : On payment of a solicitor's bill a client is entitled to the possession of letters written to the solicitor by third parties, but not to copies of letters written by the solicitor to third parties unless they are paid for by the client (in re Thompson 1855, 20 Beav. 545). A solicitor is not bound to deliver to his client, on the termination of his retainer, letters addressed to him by his client, nor copies in his letter book of his own letters to his client (in re Wheatcroft 1877, 6 Gh. D. 97). In Mater v. Macalister (1952) N.Z.L.R. 257, the Supreme Court of New Zealand held that the defendant's firm of solicitors practising in New Zealand, were liable to surrender to the plaintiff carbon copies. of letters which they had written to third parties on the plaintiff's behalf. In re Thompson was distinguished on the ground that, while a solicitor could not be expected to mutilate a letter book kept for his own protection by tear ing out pages and delivering them to the client, he could and should hand over carbon copies kept in the case file. Town Planning A local planning authority served on the defen dant an enforcement notice under Section 45 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, re quiring him to remove from his land caravans which had been placed thereon without the per mission required by Part III of the Act. The defendant failed to comply with the notice within twenty-eight days of its taking effect and an information was preferred against him. The notice had been sent to the defendant by prepaid regis­