The Gazette 1967/71

Lords held that where company A sells property to associated company B in return for shares, the "consideration for the transfer" is the shares and nothing else, even though it was part of the arrangement that the shares would be renounced in favour of a third party who would pay for them in cash. The Commissioners held that, ex emption did not apply, but Pennycuick, J. held that it did. The Court of Appeal held that it did not apply. In this case the tax payers got back their duty and, as a result of the passing of Section 51 of the Finance Act 1965, they also got interest at 5 per cent, from the date of the Court of Appeal decision to the date of repay ment. Section 42 of the Finance Act 1938 is similar to the provisions of Section 19 of the Irish Finance Act 1952. (Shop and Store Developments Limited v In land Revenue Commissioners) (1967) 2 All. R.E. 42; (1967) 1 A.C. 472). Reintroduction of new evidence on re-examina tion : If a witness is cross-examined on a statement by him which is alledged to be inconsistent with his evidence, an earlier statement consistent with his evidence in chief can be put to him in re- examination. (Flanagan v Fahy (1918) 1 I.R. 361 and Gilly v Posho (1939) 2 All E.R. 196 distinguish); [Amhed v Brumfit (1967) 112 SJ. 32, C.A.]. New Evidence received after Retirement of Jury : After a jury had retired to consider their ver dict on a charge of shopbreaking and larceny they returned with a request to see a car which had been referred to in evidence. The Commissioner permitted this although he refused to permit any evidence of the ownership of the car. The jury then convicted. Held, allowing the defendants appeal that the view infringed the rule that no evidence may be admitted after the retirement of the jury and accordingly the conviction was squashed. (R v Laurence [1968] 118 New L. J. 85). Publication of matter likely to affect Criminal Trial : A Divisional Court of the High Court in Eng land considering the Race Relations Act 1965 (c 73) considered the following :— 1. The gravity of a contempt relating to pending proceedings depends on the likely prejudice to a fair trial and the culpability of the con- temner, 94

objected that as the landlords were claiming possession they were not at the same time en titled to relief on the footing that the lease still subsisted. Held, (1) That the injunctions claimed, were in the nature of an alternative claim; (2) that accordingly the landlords had not made an unequivocal demand for possession operating as a final election to terminate the lease; and (3) that it would be open to them to proceed at the trial on the basis that the lease still subsisted, and so the objection failed. (Calabar Properties v Seagull Autos [1968] 1 All E.R. 1). Failure to Embody Intentions in Contract : A five-year contract at a set price per month for the disposal of offal from the defendant's chicken processing plant contained a clause that if the defendant were to change management or ownership in any way during the five years "the new management or owner must honour this agreement to expiration or reimburse [the plain tiff] to full amount" of certain machines and equipment which he had installed at the defen dant's plant. After a sale of shares of the de fendant and a change of management, the plain tiff was notified of a purported cancellation of the agreement under the clause. The plaintiff sued for specific performance. Held, (1) that the new owners being strangers to the contract, had no rights or obligations under it in their own name and could not purport to cancel or otherwise interfere with it; nor could they revoke the contract through their control of the defendant; (2) that the clause could not be given the effect of empowering the defendant to terminate the agreement umlaterally simply by changing management; an excepting or terminat ing clause must be perfectly clear, effective and precise; (3) that judging by parol evidence and the prior drafts of the agreement, the parties had not agreed upon the function of the clause and the draftsman had failed to give effect to the con flicting intentions of either, wih he result that the clause was completely unenforceable and not susceptible of amendment; and (4) that, since the contract thus contained no termination clause short of the five-year provision, the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance. (Marquest Industries v Willows Poultry Farms [1967] 63 D.L.R. (2d) 753, British Columbia Supreme Court). Interest on Overpaid Stamp Duty : By a majority of three to two the House of