The Gazette 1967/71

Covenanter to User The defendant covenanted with the plaintiff not to let any other shop on a housing estate for the purpose of a general hardware merchant and ironmonger. The defendant subsequently leased another shop to a co-operative society which covenanted to open the premises as a food hall and also that they would not sell on the premises anything which would cause the landlord to be in breach of their covenant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed damages for breach of covenant. He alleged that some of the goods sold by the co-op were, if not hardware, goods usually sold in a hardware shop to the extent that they could be called hardware. The landlords defence was that they had covenanted not to let another shop for a particular purpose and with this covenant they had complied: they had not covenanted not to permit the use of the premises for that purpose. In his Judgement Megarry J. said that co-operative society had expressly bound itself by its covenant not to use the premises for any other purpose than that of food hall. The landlords covenant in the lease to the plaintiff imposed a further restriction in that it prevented the plaintiff from direct competition of another hardware merchant. The purposes of a food hall might embrace the sale of the entire range of goods sold in a hardware but if the tenant sought protection he would need wider covenants than those in this case. The clauses in the lease to the society were sufficient to discharge the landlords duty to the tenants. Rother v Colchester Borough Council, 113 S.J. 243. LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS (a) NEW EDITIONS OF WELL-KNOWN TEXTBOOKS BAILEY (S.J.)—Law of Wills, 6th Edn.. 1967 (Two Copies). BEATTIE (C. N.)—The Elements of Estate Duty 6th Edn. 1968. BINGHAM (J.)—Motor Claims Cases, 6th Edn 1968. BOWSTEAD (W.)—Law of Agency, 13th Edn., 1968. BORR1E (G. J.)—Commercial Law, 2nd Edn., 1966. CORDERY (J.)—Law Relating to Solicitors, 6th Edn., 1968. CROSS (Rupbert) and Philip Asterley JONES— An Introduction to Criminal Law, 6th Edn., 1968 (four copies). 122

Copyright The Plaintiff sought an

injunction

to restrain

infringement of their copyright involved in the playing of a television set in a Lounge Bar of the Hotel, and of musical works recorded from Radio Eireann, and the playing of music at dances in the Ballroom of the Hotel. In giving Judgment the Court indicated that the Copyright Act 1963 protects (1) the copyright in the original work, and (2) the copyright in the sound recording of the work. The Plaintiffs in this case claim to be owners of the copyright of the original musical work. In giving Judgment to the Plaintiffs Kenny J. said that owners of Hotels and licensed premises in this country who intend to place television or radio sets in rooms to which the public have access should get licenses from the Performing Rights Society Ltd. If they do not they will probably find themselves unsuccessful Defendants in actions in the High Court. The Performing Rights Society Ltd v Rosses Point Hotel Co. Ltd., High Court, 20/2/1967 Solicitor, Discipline Appeal from the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society. The appelant Solicitor went into partnership with another Solicitor X. Upon investigation the Society found that there had been infringements of the Accounts Regulations in the partnership there being a cash shortage of over £4,000. The Disciplinary Committee found proved charges against both the apellant and X and they were suspended for one and two years respectively. The appelant appealed against the penalty. In his judgment the Chief Justice said that the Court would only interfere in a very extreme case where the Disciplinary Committee thought fit to impose a particular penalty for professional mis conduct. They were the proper judges of what the penalty ought to be. It appeared that the Committee were influenced by the belief that the apparant failure of the appelant to make enquiries about the financial aspect of the partnership. Evidence to the contrary was now before the Court and it appeared that the Solicitor had borrowed large sums from his father to make up the deficiency. If these facts were before the Disciplinary Committee they would have made a greater distinction between the partners. In these circumstances the Court substituted a reprimand for the one year suspension. In Re a Solicitor 14th March, 1969. 113 S.J. 326.