The Gazette 1967/71

the better government of Ireland". In any event the sections of that Act still in force are deemed to represent the Constitution of Northern Ire land. Dr. Calvert has not only carried out ex pertly a detailed examination of the practical problems arising under this Act but his deep scholarship and learning are discernible in con sidering the jurisprudence and case law that have derived under the Act. The author has also analysed with cold logic and lucid reasoning some of the Statutes of the Stormont Parliament. Of the Special Powers Act, he states on page 381 that "the Act does evidence a radical de parture from the procedural safeguards tradi tionally and justifiably regarded as desirable for the preservation of civil liberties" and then, with the cold perspicacity of the academic lawyer, proceeds to examine it ruthlessly. In considering the question of compensation under the Town Planning Acts in McConnell v. Belfast Corpora tion, (1957) there is little doubt that Sheil J's remarks, though obiter, are correct, and that one must examine whether the Planning Code con flicts with Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act: Dr. Galvert correctly doubts the reasoning of Hanna J. in Pigs Marketing Board v. Don- nelly— (1939) I.R. 413, as "Judges do not hesitate to fix standards for themselves in other circumstances, even though questions of politics, economics or sociology may be concerned". It is rather alarming (p. 167) that "none of the decisions of the Irish Courts—particularly those of first instance—are binding on the Northern Ireland Courts since 1920—in fact the ironical position has arisen that despite the doctrine that it is customary to cite jurisprudence from all Common Law countries, nevertheless one would cite Irish precedents since 1920 at one's peril to certain Northern judges. In the case of Duffy v. The Minister for Labour— (1962) N.I.6—where the Court of Appeal narrowly held that the Safeguarding of Employment Act 1947 was not ultra vires the Government of Ireland Act 1920, it took no cognizance of Article 18 of the European Social Charter which specifies the right to engage in gainful occupation in the territory of other Con tracting Parties; it is to be noted that this Char ter was duly signed and ratified by the United Kingdom, and a most solemn undertaking is given in it to apply the regulations liberally. The Court reached the legalistic conclusion that the legislation was made for peace, order and good government; furthermore it did not affect aliens, as the touchstone of the Act was not nationality 34

in bankruptcy

to withdraw his proof

agreed

against X. Both the Crown and the taxpayer agreed that an entry should have been made in respect of the liability of the 1956 accounts and that an adjustment was to be made. The tax payer contended that the amount to which he was liable at the end of the period for which the accounts were prepared should be entered, the Crown argued for the sum of £3,000. The special commissioners held in favour of the Crown. On appeal by the taxpayer : Held, that, although the estimated liability, if originally entered, would not have fallen to be altered by reason of subsequent events, where the account had to be reopened by reason of error, it is the true amount of the debt ultimately established should be entered. (Simpson v. Jones (Inspector of Taxes) [1968] l.W.L.R. p. 1066). Stamp Duty, Variation of Leases Two long leases were varied by deeds so as to increase the rents reserved. The deed of variation was assessed to Stamp Duty by charging the ad valorum lease duty on the amount of the in crease in the average rents on the basis that it operated as a surrender of the two leases and a grant of new leases for terms equal to the un- expired residues of your original terms. It was held dismissing the appeal that the deed of variation operated to increase the rents but not as a surrender of the original leases. However the deed of variation was chargeable under the heading "Bond covenant etc." in the Stamp Act, 1891 Schedule 1 the amount chargable being limited by Section 77 (5) of that Act as if the deed were a lease or as that section was a relieving provision. (Gable Construction Co. Ltd. v. I.R.C. [1968] 2 All E.R. 968). BOOK REVIEW Constitutional Law in Northern Ireland— A Study in Regional Government by Harry Calvert—Pp. xxi, 400—Belfast, NORTHERN IRELAND LEGAL QUARTERLY, 1968, £5 0 0. This admirable work, the fruit of several years labour, has now appeared, and Dr. Calbert deserves the warmest congratulations as much of Legal practitioners as of academic lawyers. Some readers may agree with the view expressed by Gavan Duffy J. in Cogan v. The Minister for Finance— (1941) I.R. at p. 402—that the Govern ment of Ireland Act 1920 was a statutory abor tion sardonically entitled "an Act to provide for