The Gazette 1964/67

and adjusted television and radio sets. Part of his job was the diagnosing of faults, but on an average day he spent most of his time repairing the sets and replacing faulty parts. This was done by hand. It was held that the fact that in doing work with his hands a man used technical know ledge did not prevent the work being manual work, so long as it was not primarily work of a different kind (e.g. intellectual activities) to which work with the hands was merely accessory. The engineer was therefore 'employed in manual labour' for the purposes of the definition of s. 175 of the Factories Act 1961, and the premises where he was employed were a factory. (J. and F. Stone Lighting and Radio Ltd. v Haygarth (1966) 3 All. E.R. p. 539). On Thursday, March 9, 1967 Mr. Justice Kenny ruled in the High Court that there is statutory authority for the building of dual carriageways. The plaintiff had claimed that the Dublin County Council intended to erect a division along the centre of the Dublin to Naas road which would deprive him and his customers of free access to his premises, would constitute an unlawful viola tion of his rights and an unlawful obstruction. The County Council had the power and the duty to maintain and construct main road and "maintain" included widening. It also included reasonable improvements. If the new road, when finished, would form one public road and if the existing public road would then form another public road, so that there would be two roads, the defendants had not erected any obstruction to either road by leaving a division in the middle because the passage of the public would not have been interfered with. In delivering his reserved judgment the Judge stated, inter alia, that "when completed the two roads would together form one road, the right of passage would not arise until the new road had been opened to the public and the obstruction created by the raised division would be there when the road was made available to the public. The public would thus get the right of passage over the widened road with the division there already, and he was not satisfied that such a raised div ision in the road, created before the road had been given over to public passage, could be a nuisance or an obstruction. 136 Local Authority's Right to Erect Dual Carriageway

representatives "putting their heads together to dispose of all their troubles." A meeting was arranged for June 27, i.e., one day after the time limit for arbitration had expired. At that meeting it was felt that one side or the other would make an offer to settle the outstanding disputes. No offer was made on either side and on July 6 when the shipowners applied Lo the charterers for arbitration, the charterers contended that the application was time-barred. So the ship owners asked the court to extend the time for arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1950 s. 27. It was held (C.A. : Lord Denning M.R., and Salmon L.J.; Harman L.J., dissenting : January 19, 1967) that the time should be extended be cause "undue hardship" would otherwise be caused to the shipowners. If there was an excus able mistake and no prejudice to the other side, it might also be too harsh to deprive an individual of ever making his claim, all the more so if the mistake were contributed to or shared by the other party. Though, when the charterers went to the meeting on June 27 they did not intend to mislead the shipowners, nevertheless their con duct in going on with the negotiations at that date put the shipowners off their guard. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted. (Liberian Shipping Corporation v A. King & Sons Ltd.— The Times, January 20, 1967). Rating — Residential Caravan In this case, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Lands Tribunal that a caravan in residential use was in exclusive occupation of the caravan owner for rating purposes. The cara van in question was occupied as a permanent residence throughout the year. Although it was mobile and still on wheels and the site owners had power to move it, having control of access to the site, the caravan had remained on the same site for over four years, with electricity and drainage connections. The caravan and its pitch constituted one unit of occupation which was a rateable hereditament; a chattel, although not rateable per se, might become so if enjoyed with the requisite degree of permanence. Moreover, the Lands Tribunal had correctly determined that the owner of the caravan was in exclusive oc cupation of the caravan and pitch. (Field Place Caravan Park Ltd. and Ors. v Hard- ing (Valuation Officer) (1966) 3 A.E.R. p. 247). Meaning of Factory and Manual Labour Behind the appellants' radio shop was a back room where an engineer in their employ repaired