The Gazette 1967/71

Mary Dolphin of the one part and Edward Mountford Coleman of the other. His Lordship, in a reserved jurl^ment, dismissed a summons by Birmingham Corporation against Mr. Boden and three others representing numerous persons who, being owners of parts of the Selly Hill Estate, claimed to be entitled to enforce the covenants against the Corporation. Birmingham Corporation v. Boden and others. Ch. Div. 25/3/70. Where a landlord is entitled to enforce a lease for his tenant's breach of covenant, he does not waive his right of reentry simply by granting a reversionary lease to a third party " subject to and with the benefit of" the tenant's lease, for an act by the landlord which is not communicated to the tenant or can have no impact on him cannot constitute a waiver. An assignee of the reversion can sue and reenter for rent in arrear at the date of the assignment even though the right of reentry arose before the assignment. London and Country (A.D.) Ltd. v. Wilfrid Sportsman and Another. Master and Servant Where employers terminated a four-year apprentice ship agreement without justification, the apprentice was entitled to damages for short-term loss of earnings for the remainder of his term and also for long-term loss of future prospects of a better job and higher status in the labour market attaching to a person who has served his apprenticeship. Durk v. George Waller—C.A.—29/4/70. Negligence New Trial Ordered on Damages issue. An infant under 2 years of age received severe head injuries, and as a result, at the age of three, he developed staring attacks which is a form of epilepsy. Henchy J. having heard the evidence of neuro-surgeons, told the jury that it was open to them to find that the infant plaintiff would develop major epilepsy, and consequently the jury assessed damages at £13,000. The Supreme Court (O'Dalaigh C. J., Walsh and McLoughlin J. J.) having reviewed the evidence held that Henchy J. had overstated the effect of the neuro-surgeon's evidence, and ordered a new trial on the question of damages. Per O'Dalaigh C. J.—In cases such as this, where there is an issue of possibility or probability of some disability or il'ness arising in the future, the damages awarded should be commensurate with, and proportionate to. the degree of possibility or probability as the case may be. Dunlop v. Kenny—unreported—29th July 1969. His Lordship held that building and civil engineering contractors who damaged an electricity cable and so cut off power to a factory some distance away could be sued in negligence by the owners of the factory for damages for loss of production and damage to the plant. He was giving judgmen on a preliminary point of law in an action by the plaintiffs, manufacturers of typewriters, of Birmingham, against the contractors S.C.M. (United Kingdom) Ltd. v.' W. J. Whittall and Son Ltd. Q.B.D. 16/3/70. The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Davies, Lord .Justice Winn and Sir Frederic Sellers) gave leave to the plaintiff Mrs. Sheila Albert, to appeal to the House of Lords against their decision, affirming Mr. Justice Willis, 135

into with the intention of creating legal relations and to be binding on the husband. Merritt v. Merritt. C. of A. 27/4/70. Gaming and Lotteries A decision by the Gaming Beard, set up under the Gaming Act, 1968, which faces Crockford's, the century- old gaming club in Carlton House Terrace, with extinction, was held to have been fair and not contrary to natural justice. The Court said that in general it would interfere with decisions by the board if they were not fair. The board should disclose to an applicant for a certificate of consent to apply for a gaming club licence sufficient information about any objections they might have as to his suitability to run a club to enable him to answer any case against him. But they were not bound to disclose the sources of their information lest doing so should put the informant in peril or deter a person from giving information. Regina v. Gaming Board for Great Britain Ex Parte Barain and Khaida. C. of A. 23/4/70. Landlord and Tenant A farming partnership deed between father and son stated that the partnership capital was to consist of the stock, machinery and other " assets '' of the business of farmer carried on by the father at an agricultural holding but did not specifically refer to the farm lease, so that the lease did not become vested in the partnership and accordingly, a notice to quit under section 24 (2) (g) of the Holdings Act, 1948, was valid and effective, Mr. Justice Nield decided in a judgment reserved from Chester Assizes. Eardley and Another v. Broed and Another. Q.B.D. 27/4/70. Services not quantified in terms of money cannot amount to " rent" within the meaning of the Rent Acts, their Lordships decided in allowing an appeal by the plaintiff landlords against the refusal of Judge Trapnell at Bromley County Court last July to grant them posses sion of rooms occupied by the defendants, in a house in Bromley. Barnes v. Barratt. C. of A. 14/3/70. When a landlord brings an action for forfeiture of a lease for breach of covenant, the lease comes to. an end when the writ is served and not when it is issued. The present practice of claiming rent up to the date of issue of the writ and mesne profits thereafter is wrong and should not be followed. The Court, deciding for the first time a point on which there were conflicting statements in the authori ties so held in dismissing an appeal by defendant lessees from the decison of Judge Herbert at Westminster County Court last July in favour of landlords of a house and shop in Rusholme, Manchester, that the lessee company were liable to pay the landlords £200 rent for the quarter ended June 24, 1968, on forfeiture of the lease for breach of contract. Canas Property Co. Ltd. v. I.T.L. Television Services that restrictive covenants limiting the number of houses that could be erected on land part of which is now owned by Birmingham Corporation, contained in a conveyance of February 27, 1871, and other conveyances, were not enforceable. The 1871 conveyance was between Ann and Ltd. C. of A. 13/4/40. His Lordship refused to make a declaration