The Gazette 1967/71

rial change

in use

involving development for

to switch on more lights injured himself by falling over a tie-bar in the shadow of a piece of unfinis hed machinery. He claimed damages from his employers alleging they were in breach of their statutory duty. Held :— 1. That the employers were not in breach of an obligation to secure and maintain lighting in 'every part of a factory in which persons are working or passing' up to the standards set out in reg. 2 of the Factories (Standards of Lighting) Regulations, 1941. dealing with the power requi red where persons are regularly employed and para, (b) with all other interior parts of the fac tory. In this case para, (a) was the relevant pro vision but did not apply in the circumstances as work was not in progress when the accident occurred and the lighting was adequate for other purposes. 2. If para, (b) was relevant, the lighting was up to standard and the fact that the unfinished machinery cast shadows which temporarily reduce light did not create a breach of the obligation. 3. Another light switch was much nearer at hand so that it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to cross the floor without stronger illumination and the accident was his own fault. (Lane v. Gloucester Engineering Co. Ltd. (1967) 2. All E.R. 293. UNREPORTED IRISH JUDGEMENTS 1. People (Attorney-General) v. Roger O'Callag- han. Appeal from Murnaghan J. refusing bail—appli cant returned for trial in October, 1966 in Cork— offences of larceny committed while on bail— Attorney-General opposes bail because applicant might interfere with witnesses—The Supreme Court rejects this—object of bail neither punitive nor preventitive—fundamental and only test- probability of applicant evading justice—previous record irrelevant—a person should not be de prived of liberty upon only a belief that he will commit offences—theory that bail is a privilege rejected—Appeal allowed—bail of £200 granted. (4th April, 1967). 2. McGowan v. Murray. Claim for damages for conspiracy withdrawn from Jury by Teevan J.—declaration by plaintiff that he had been wrongfully expelled by Electrical Trade Union—conspiracy to prevent plaintiff from earning his living and to injure him— plaintiff took part in unofficial strike in Dromland Castle in July 1963—plaintiff expelled—executive committee confirms this—mock trial alleged by 56

which planning permission was that planning permission should not be granted, and that the appeal should be dismissed. The site owner appealed. Widgery, L. J., said that the first question was what was the unit of land to which the test of 'material change' or not should be applied; fol lowing G. Percy Trenthan, Ltd. v. Gloucester shire County Council (1966) 1 W.L.R. 506 (C.A.), it was right to look at the whole premises, not the building in isolation. The Minister properly an swered the next question by concluding that the primary use of the whole premises before the use complained of was for agriculture including, as an incident, the provision of facilities for selling the agriculturist's produce. What had happened since, and did it amount to a material change? Although the quantitive change was small, the Minister was entitled to find that it was a change in the character of the use to bring on to the land vegetables and the like for sale; since there was material on which he could find it was a material change of use and the change was not de minimis, everything else was a matter of fact and degree, the decision was capable of being supported, and the appeal should be dismissed. Diplock, L. J., and Lord Parker, C.J., agreed. Appeal dismissed. (Williams v. Minister of Hous ing and Local Government and Another, (Vol. Two full-time salaried officials of a trade union brought a libel action against a member in respect of letters written by the member, it implied that they were unfit to be employed by the union. Their actions were dismissed and the member now sought to restrain the union from using funds to pay the officials' costs. It was held :— 1. That the union did not commit an offence of maintenance by supporting the litigation brought to vindicate its servants' reputation. The right of a master to support his servant's litigation is an exception to the general rule prohibiting the maintenance of other men's actions and it extends to an action for libel to protect a servant's repu tation attacked by reason of acts done by him in the course of his employment. 2. Notwithstanding the absence of express provi sion in the union rules, there was an implied power to spend union funds on such litigation.. (Hill v. Archbold, (1967) 1 AER 1038) Suitable Lighting in Factory The plaintiff arrived at the defendant's factory before work began and while crossing the floor required, Ill) Solicitors' Journal p.559). Maintenance by a Trade Union