The Gazette 1967/71

Evidence

the premises for the purposes of their undertaking was held to be valid. [Charles Clay & Sons Ltd. v British Railways Board —Court of Appeal— The Times— 25 January 1971.] A tenant's application for the grant of a new tenancy of business premises under section 24 (1) of the Land lord and Tenant Act, 1954. which did not state thf proposed rent or conditions of tenancy was held not to be a nullity and should not have been struck out. The application in the present case gave full particulars of the current tenancy but asked for the renewal of the tenancy "for a period of five or seven years at a rent to be agreed upon or to be decided by the court." [Williams v Hillcroft Garage Ltd.—Court of Appeal — The Times —27 January 1971.] NATURAL LAW Dismissal of complaint against Unregistered Dentist unjustified District Justice dismisses complaint that defendant, not being a registered dentist, had practised dentistrv. Case stated to High Court as to whether he was justified Under Dentists Act 1928, the Dental Board onlv registers persons who are suitably qualified. The defendant is a dental mechanic, who provided a dental inspector with a set of dentures having first fitted him. The Justice took the view that the inspector was an accomplice whose evidence could not be accepted. There is however no rule of law that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice must be rejected. There the requirements as to corroboration in the case of a true accomplice do not apply in the case of a person acting in the course of his duty for the purpose of obtaining evidence of an illegal transaction, this Drinrio'e aonlies to statutory bodies as well as to police officers. Here the private and clandestine nature of the transactions makes it difficult to obtain sufficient evidence to secure a conviction save in acting as an agent provocateur. The case will be remitted to the District Justice to deal with according to law. [Dental Board v O'Callaghan—Unreported—Butler J. —31 January 1969.] NEGLIGENCE The Judicial Committee held that a girl, born without arms and with defective evesight in New South Wales, who claimed that the disabilities were due to her mother having taken a preparation manufactured by the Distillers Company (Bio-chemicals) Ltd., an English company, had a cause of action which arose within the jurisdiction of the New South Wales court. The prepara tion. Distival. which contained thalidomide. was sold by another company in Australia, where Distillers did not carry on business. [Distillers Company (Bio-Chemicals) v Thompson— Privy Council— The Times— 20 January 1971.] 198

See In re Fernendez; Court of Appeal; The Times; 6 February 1071. A new trial was ordered in an action by a girl, now aged 15, who was injured in a road accident in 1960. Their Lordships Lord Justice Davies dissenting, allowed an appeal by Susan Ford (suing by her next friend) of Newport, Gloucestershire, from the dismissal , by Mr. .Justice Veale at Gloucester last July, of her claim for damages for injuries she received when a van driven by the defendant, Mr. William Lewis, collided with her when she was walking home with her parents along the A38 road one dark and misty night in March, 1960. Mr. Lewis, now a patient at a mental hospital in Glamorgan was defended by his guardian ad litem. The infant plaintiff appealed on the ground that the trial judge had wrongly exercised his discretion to admit in evidence hospital records relating to her father, and a statement made bv the defendant setting out his version of the accident although the circumstances under which the statement was produced did not satisfy the requirements of section 2(1) of the Civil Evidence Act. 1968, no notice having been given to the plaintiff's legal advisers as required by Order 38, rules 21, 22 and 23 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. [Ford v Lewis—Court of Appeal— The Times— 27 January 1971.] Family A leasehold house which had been bought and mort gaged in the joint names of husband and wife and a third party was held to be the wife's sole property after the marriage had been dissolved because the wife had paid the initial deposit and costs out of her own money, and had thereafter run the house as a "self-supporting asset'' so that her former husband had no claim to a beneficial interest in it. [Grzeczkowski v Jedynska and another—Court of Appeal— The Times— 19 January 1971.] The fact that Sikh s\r\ of 17 had married a Sikh in an arranged marriage because of obedience to her parents' wishes and out of a proper sense of duty was held not to be sufficient to vitiate her consent. [Singh v Singh—Court of Appeal— The Times— 2 February 1917.] ' An order that a party to a matrimonial dispute should be turned out of his or her own house is so drastic that it should never be made unless it has been proved that it is completely impossible for the spouses to live to gether in peace in the same house. [H. v H.—Court of Appeal— The Times— 20 January 1971.] Landlord and Tenant A provision in a periodic tenancy agreement that the landlords should not terminate it until they required