The Gazette 1967/71

cases the Central Criminal Court, and that he was not satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for adjourning the trial. Mr. Connolly told the court that there were four senior counsel and five junior cousel whose names still remained on the panel. A number of them had been approached by Mr. O'Donnell, but none of them was available for next Monday. In reply to the court Mr. Connolly stated that Mr. O'Donnell had not informed the President that he had approached counsel and that they were not available to appear. He agreed that the President should be informed. If the two men were willing to surrender bail, counsel would then be free to act for them gratuitously. Mr. Barrington said that one factor which had influenced them in not bringing to the President's attention the fact that counsel would not be available to act. was that a similar situation had arisen in another case and the President had been informed that the counsel who had been briefed would not, in fact, be available. In that case the President did not alter his refusal to adjourn the hearing. The State (O'Leary and O'Brien) v. Attorney- General—Supreme Court—unreported—26 June 1970. PLANNING Architect entitled to act on representation of planning officer. The Court of Appeal (Lord Denning and Lord Justices Sachs and Megaw) dismissing an appeal by Westminster Corporation of Mr. Justice Bridge declar ing in favour of developers, Lever Finance Ltd. that a valid planning permission under the Town Planning Act was in existence for the erection of a house under con struction in St. John's Wood. The Court held that an architect, who found it necessary to vary the plans for a housing development after they had been approved by the local planning authority and, acting in accordance with the authority's settled practice, consulted a plann ing officer, who told him that the proposed variation was not material and that no further application for planning permission was necessary, was entitled to act on that representation and go ahead with the work. Where the evidence showed so sensible a nractice. the local authority were bound by what the planning officer had stated. (Lever Finance Ltd. v. Westminster Corporation— The Times, 22nd July 1970.) TAX LAW Revenue Commissioners cannot be made party to a Dispute between private citizens, even for con venience. The House of Lords (Lord Reid, Morris, Dilhorne, Wilberforce and Diplock) allowed an interlocutory appeal by the trustees of a family settlement made by the late Mr. Guy Vandervell from the Court of Appeal {Lord Denning, Lord Justices Sachs and Karminski) (1970) Ch. 44—which held in favour of the executors of the estate that the Court had jurisdiction to order that the Revenue Commissioners be joined as second defendants to an originating summons taken out by the executors against the trustees, as persons whose presence was necessary. The House of Lords held that listed for trial at the present sittings of

the present Rule of the Supreme Court, which gives the Court a discretion to order the joinder in any cause or matter of any person who ought to have been joined as a party and whose presence is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute "may be effectually and com pletely determined" is not wide enough to entitle the court to order the Inland Revenue Commissioners to be joined as a party to a dispute between private citizens merely because it would be just and convenient to do so. Where, therefore, the executors of a large estate who had been assessed to surtax on dividends held by the trustees of a family settlement made by the deceased began an action in the High Court against the trustee to decide to whom the dividends belonged and sought to join the revenue as a party in order that the revenue might be bound by the court's decision, the House of Lords held that though the Crown consented to be joined and to be bound by the decision, such joinder should not be ordered because the revenue sought no relief, did not seek to be joined, and therefore their presence was not "necessary". (Vandervell Trustees Ltd. v. White— The Times, 16th July, 1970.) CRIME The Court of Criminal Appeal set aside a conviction of shop breaking and larceny against three men who had no legal representation during their trial in the Central Criminal Court where they were found guilty by a jury. A new trial was ordered. The Court took the view that in this case it was most desirable that the accused men should have been represented by Counsel and Solicitor and that as a result of not being represented there might have been a miscarriage of justice. They had appealed on the grounds that an application for free legal aid had been refused and that later when the case came on for hearing an application for adjournment was refused and they claimed that they had been de prived of a fair opportunity of presenting their defence and that the trial was accordingly unsatisfactory. (People [A.-G.] v. John Holden. Court of Criminal Appeal 23/7/70 unreported.) TRESPASS Inquiry Agent liable to pay damages for trespass in house. Mr. Justice Geoffrey Lane held that permission given to an inquiry agent by a wife separated from her husband to enter the husband's home is not sufficient to prevent the entry from being trespass. He awarded to the husband, Mr. Ernest Joliffe, of High Street, Slough, £400 damages and costs against the inquiry agent, Mr. Cyril Hearne of Egham, for trespass and assault. Mr. Jolliffe also sued his wife's solicitors, but that claim was dismissed with costs against Mr. Joliffe It was held that on the present occasion the incursion by Mr. Hearne had all the marks of high-handed and insolent behaviour. Accordingly the husband, having three times asked Mr. Hearne to leave, was entitled to use reasonable force to get him out, and Mr. Hearne committed an assault by striking him on the head. (Jolliffe v. Wilmett & Co. and Hearne— The Time!, 21st July 1970.) 60