The Gazette 1967/71

liable to be increased or decreased on notice being given " was valid and entitled the council to increase the rents by a reasonable amount provided the tenant was given ressonable notice of the increase and that the amount was rr.ade certain by the time it had to be paid. Greater London County Council v. Connolly. Court of Appeal, 19/1/70. The tenant of a flat in Greater London who in Nov ember, 1965, got the rate value reduced from £430 to £388 and obtained a refund of the excess rates backdated to November, 1963, was held not to have a protected tenancy under the Rent Acts, 1965 and 1968, because the valuation list showed the reduced rateable value as taking effect from April i, 1965, whereas under the Act of 1965 " the approprite date " for ascertaining the rateable value in the list was March 23, 1965, and on that date the value shown was £430. Section I of the 1965 Act provides that " The Rent Acts shall apply ... to every tenancy . . . the rateable value of which on the appropriate day did net exceed, in Greater London £400 . . ." Rodwell v. Gwynne Trusts Ltd. House of Lords, 21/1/70. Negligence A man who was involved in a car accident while driving without insurance was held by the Court to be entitled to recover damages and costs resulting from the accident from the insurance brokers who had negligently recom mended him to insure with a company they ought to have known was in financial difficulties and for subsequently .ra:ling to inform him that the company had become insolvent and that he was no longer insured. Osman v. J. Rulph Moss Ltd. Court of Appeal, 10/2/70. Plaintiff, girl of 20, passenger in a car which crashed into a ditch near Longford in August 1964—Remained in hospital until October 1964—Plaintiff had gone to U.S. at age of 15 and was then earning £24 per week as domestic servant—Suffered from fractured dislocation of hip-joint and lacerations of forehead—Dislocation re asserts itself in 1966—further operation—on crutches until end of 1966—Jury, before Henchy J., assessed damages at £11,293—special damages £3,000, pain and suffering £2,000—loss of earnings estimated at £8 per week—could not return to U.S. and in view of injuries as an engaged girl was unable to marry—Hoped to run a restaurant, but no figures put before jury—Actuarial evidence as to dif ferent e?.inings in U.S. and Ireland necessary—Appeal allowed and new trial directed by Supreme Court Dalton v. McGee—Unreported—27 June 1967. (O'Dalaigh, C. J., Haugh and Budd, J. J.) Plaintiff, Belfast girl, injured in collision at Swords in August 1960—Mother killed and father and only sister seriously injured in same collision. Plaintiff's right leg shortened by in'ury, also suffered from concussion to the brain and serious nervous shock—Jury awarded her £3>335 before Teevan J.—As however this amount did not exceed the lodgment, Judgment was entered for Defendant—Plaintiff trainee Nurse at Belfast Victoria Hospital—claimed all memory of pre-accident life for gotten—forgot she was a boarder in Sacred Heart Con vent. Armagh, for ten years—did not know father— Hrwevcr in April 1961, she bought an Austin car and drove it—In October 1963, she turned to motor car rally driv'ng as diversion and was competitor in the Munster Rally gaining fi-st place—This involved much concentra tion of body and mind—became civil servant in Northern 103

Family

A man without a job and on social security, who had a vested interest in a £22,000 fund and was the subject of a discretionary trust was ordered to settle £4,700 on his former wife and children to enable her 10 buy a house. The wife had previously obtained a divorce decree against him on the ground of his cruelty. Crews-Orchard v. Crews Orchard, Court of Appeal, 27/1/70. (.But see Mayo-Penott—(1958) I.R. 336). Injunction A lease of Warren House, Sutton, was granted for 100 yeais in 1835—10 acres assigned to John Hanley in 1934— Hanky negotiates with Howth Estate Co. for reversionary lease—lease for 999 years of 3rd May 1935 between Representative Church Body '.'as mortgagees), the Com pany and Hanley, Covenant that premises to be used as private dwelling-house only—Warren House not demoli shed until 1961 by Defendants Trustees—Plot of land assigned to plaintiff Fitzpatrick in July 1939 to build house worth at least £1,000—Further plot assigned to Mr. O'Boyle tc build further house in March 1939—There was no assignment of the covenant as to user contained in Head Lease of 1931, only an indemnity—Proposed erection of school by Christian Brothers would reduce market value of Plaintiff's house by £6,000—Hanley died in December 1942 leaving all his property of 6 acres to his wife and this property was subsequently assigned to Mrs. Margaret Willis in November 1959, Mrs. Willis sold the premises to the first four Defendants, trustees of the Christian Brothers, subject to the benefit of the covenants in the assignment to the Plaintiff and Mr. O'Boyle. There was a subsequent assignment of January 1960 between Mrs. Willis and the Christian Brothers in which the Brothers undertook to observe and perform the covenants of the Head Lease of 1935—The Howth Estate Co. ulti mately agreed to alter the covenant about use of lands for private dwellings—this was put in legal form by deed of May 1961, which authorised Defendants to erect new buildings for a schocl—Plaintiffs claim an injunction to restrain the Brothers from erecting a school on the adjoin ing lands—and to restrain the Company from Authorising this—Second named Plaintiff, as assignee of Mr. O'Boyle, has served notice of discontinuanec. Plaintiffs case is that the Head Lease cf 1935 created a " Building Scheme ", and that the supplemental deed of 1961 was in derogation of the grant of the lease of 1935—but it was held that the plaintiff's contention about a " Building Scheme " was incorrect. There never had been any such scheme— and it was held that, though a school beside the Plaintiff's house will substantially reduce the market value, it will not render it materially less fit to live in—Judgment for Defendant Brothers given by Kenny J. Fitzoatrick and McDowell v. Clancy and Others (Trustees of Christian Brothers) and Howth Estate Co.—Unreported —loth February 1965. Landlord and Tenant One of the Greater London Council tenants who have refused since September, 1968. to pay increased rents lost his appeal against a county court order that he give up possession of his house. The Court held that a condition in the council's tenancy agreement that the weekly rent and other sums as shown on the front cover of the rent card are