The Gazette 1967/71

sale of food exceeding 1,300 square feet. As regards the plaintiff's claim against Quinnsworth, there is no privity of contract between them. It was contended that, on the principle of Tulk v. Moxhay, a covenant against a particular use of land retained on sale, may be enforced by any person entitled in equity to that bargain against any person bound in equity by notice of it. Although Quinnsworth had notice of the restrictive covenant, it was really a restriction on L.S.D., and this contention fails. The contention that this le- strictive covenant ran with the land, and therefore bound a tenant of L.S.D. by privity to supply, is inapplicable. Therefore the plaintiff's action against Quinnsworth must be dismissed. (Williams & Co. v. L.S.D. and Quinnsworth Ltd.) Unreported—Pringle, J.—19th June 1970. EVIDENCE Proof of Convictions in Defamation Actions Conclusive. The Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Salmon, Phillimore and Megaw) held that section 13 of the Civil Evidence Act, 1968, which provides that proof that a person has committed a criminal offence is conclusive evidence in defamation proceedings that he has committed the offence in question, and consequently enabled a court to strike out the whole or a part of a statement of claim where the defamatory matter consists of allegations that a person had been convicted of criminal offences. In dismissing an appeal from a refusal by a judge in chambers to strike out the statement of claim in a libel action, their Lordships found that although it would be acceptable in many cases to separate matters which might be struck out under section 13 from other matters com plained of, it was impossible to separate them in the present case. (Levene v. Roxhan and others, The Times, 10th July 1970.) Plea for Report of Inquiry is Refused — Compulsory Purchase case. In a reserved judgment delivered in the High Court, Mr. Justice Kenny refused an application to compel the Minister for Local Government to produce a report made to him by an inspector who held a public inquiry. The application had been made on behalf of Joseph Murphy, a building contractor, of Fitzwilliam place, Dublin, as part of proceedings in his action against Dublin Corporation. Mr. Murphy has claimed that an inquiry had been held in connection with a proposed compulsory purchase order in respect of lands at the Popintree-Balbutcher- Santry area and that subsequently the Minister had con firmed the order. He claims that the confirmation was ultra vires. At an earlier hearing it was stated that the Minister had objected to the production of the inspector's report and had claimed privilege. In the course of his judgment, Mr. Justice Kenny said that in this case the Minister had certified that the production of the report would be contrary to public interest concerned and there was no evidence on which he could conclude that this view was wrong or that it was not taken in good faith, or that the Minister had misconceived the issues in the action. "I hope that the Minister's opinion that a document 56

shipowners (Compagnie d'Armement Maritime S.A.; a French company), from the decision of the Court of /appeal (the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Salmon and Lord Justice Karminski) (1969) 1 W.L.R. 1338 ,-oldinK, on a preliminary issue, in favour of claimants, (Compagnie d'Armement Maritime, S-A. v. company, that on the true construction of a contract for the carriage of goods made with the French shipowners the proper law to be applied in a London arbitration was English law. (Compagnie D'Armement Maritime, S.A. v. Compagnie Tunistinne de Navigation, S.A.—The Times Injunction granted restraining Landlords from letting Food Displacement Area exceeding 1,300 square feet. Plaintiffs, proprietors of supermarkets, issued proceedings claiming an injunction restraining the first defendants, L.S.D., owners of Rathfarnham Shopping Centre, from permitting the second defendants, Quinnsworth (Rath farnham) Limited, as the tenant or lessee of the first named defendants to have an area for the sale of food there in excess of 1,300 square feet. L.S.D. have developed the former Rathfarnham golf club into a shopping centre. L.S.D. made an agreement with plaintiffs that they would erect a specified building to be used as a supermarket to be leased to plaintiffs; amongst the covenants entered into by L.S.D. was one "not to permit any premises in the shopping centre to have an area for the sale of food exceeding 1,300 square feet". The lease was eventually executed between L.S.D. and plaintiffs, incorporating ail the terms, including the aforementioned one, in March 1969. In fact the revised restrictive term was more stringent, inasmuch as it confined the sale of intoxicating liquor to the plaintiffs. An agreement to build specified buildings for a super market was made between L.S.D. and Quinnsowrth Ltd. on 30th April 1970; the premises comprised a total area of 20,600 square feet and were to be demised for 35 years at a rent of £10,815 rising to £12,875. There was a restrictive covenant against the sale of intoxicat ing liquor, and a provision that the total area for the sale of food was not to exceed 1,300 feet. There was an indemnity by the tenant to keep the landlords indemnified against all claims. Though no lease was executed, Quinnsworth entered into posession of the premises and opened for business on 13 th May 1970. The area occupied by foodstuffs on display had not more than 1,300 feet (food displacement area). Held—the restrictive covenant as to the letting or user of property must be construed strictly—therefore food items could not be distributed at various points throughout an unrestricted area in Quinnsworth, in view of the fact that Quinnsworth did not devote the area of 1,300 square feet solely to the sale of food, they had committed a breach of covenant with L.S.D. The plaintiffs contended that L.S.D. had been guilty of a. breach of covenant with them, by allowing Quinnsworth to have an area of more than 1,300 square feet, and that this covenant was a continuous one which had to be discharged from day to day. This contention is correct, and the plaintiffs were entitled to an Injunction re straining L.S.D. from permitting Quinnsworth from hav ing in the Rathfarnham Shopping Centre an area for the 15th July 1970^ INJUNCTION