The Gazette 1967/71

ferred by the Acts and was ultra vires, invalid and of no effect. The case arose out of proceedings brought by the Dunraven Limerick Estates Company against the Com missioners, and in his judgment in March 1970, the President of the High Court also made a similar finding in relation to the notices given and served on the Dun- raven Limerick Estates Company. The Chief Justice, in his judgment, said that the appeal was concerned with two questions — whether the scheme showed what the Act said it should show, and whether the notice served contained the information which the Act says such notice should contain. The President had found that in both respects the Commissioners were in default. The plaintiff's complaint was that the terms of the notice served were so general as to render it impossible for them to offer observations in regard to interference. What the scheme must show was stated clearly in Section 4 (1) of the Act. The words (discarding non- essentials) were "the drainage scheme — shall show — the essentials — and other rights proposed to be inter fered with." Selecting the category "construction of weirs other than mill weirs," the Chief Justice said the owners were told "if and as required new weirs will be constructed at points indicated on the map." In fact, this did not tell the owner what rights it was proposed to interfere with. The formula "if and as required'" was inserted to give the Commissioners a completely free hand; it might be all or nought or any number in between. The Com missioners had 10 options under that formula. Tt was the duty of the Commissioners under the Act to make up their minds on the best advice available as to what and how many weirs were required and what and how many existing weirs were to be removed. This information should go into the scheme. The formula "if and as required" far from being inocuous, as counsel for the Commissioners had sub mitted, was a basic and fatal infirmity. It was a mode of saying "we don't know," or "we won't tell you." The Commissioners had sought to excuse the use of the formula hy saying it was employed in the interest of landowners and in a desire to leave the scheme flexible so that the Commissioners could as much as possible, consult the wishes of the owners. This, in his opinion, disclosed a failure to appreciate the structure of the Statute. The Chief Justice said he would affirm the order of the President but he saw no objection to limiting the declaration of invalidity to such parts of the scheme as referred to the Dunraven Estate and to that extent he would modify the President's order. In a separate judgment, Mr. Justice Budd also con cluded that the scheme and notices were not in con formity with the provisions of the Act. He agreed there would seem to be no objection to limiting the declar ations of invalidity to such parts as referred to the Dunraven Estate. Mr. Justice Walsh agreed with the judgment of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Budd. [Irish Independent, 23 December, 1970.]

Family The court has jurisdiction under section 1 of the Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, to order a husband, the tenant of the matrimonial home, to leave the home for a time where the wife has obtained against him an order for persistent cruelty containing a non-cohabit ation clause. [Tarr v. Tarr. Court of Appeal. The Times, 16 Decem ber. 1970.] Gaming and Lotteries Football pools competitions linked with a charity for the benefit of cancer research and treatment, in which 99 per cent of the participants in any week did not bother to make any forecast "as to sporting or other events" were held to be unlawful lotteries under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, because no element of skill was involved in their participation; and thought 1 per cent exercised an option under the rules to make their own forecast of football results, the option was merely collateral and did not alter the character of the competition as an illegal lottery. [Singette Ltd & Others v. Martin. House of Lords. The Times, 26 November, 1970.] Insurance A motor car which was lent by a member of Clacton- on-Sea Urban District Council to the council to take French guests to Heathrow Airport and which was in an accident when it was being driven back by the clerk to the council was covered by an insurance policy cover ing only use for "social, domestic and pleasure purposes and use for business of the insured." The guests were from Valence, with which Clacton is twinned. The insurance company, Iron Trades Mutual Insur ance Ltd., had repudiated liability on the ground that the car was being used otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the policy. [D. H. R. Moody (Chemists) Ltd. v. Iron Traders Mutual Insurance Co. Ltd. Wraugham, J. The Times, 11 November, 1970.] Landlord & Tenant "Possession" of the holding, in section 30(1) (f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, was held to mean physical and not legal possession. The subsection pro vides that one ground on which a landlord may oppose a tenant's application for a new tenancy of business premises is "that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to demolish or reconstruct the premises comprised in the holding or a substantial part of those premises or to carry out substantial work of construction on the holding or part thereof and that he could not reasonably do so without obtaining possess ion of the holding." [Heath v. Drown. Court of Appeal. The Times 19 November, 1970.] Local Government A private hire car displaying a roof sign with a tele phone number did not contravene section 4(1) (b) of the 161