The Gazette 1967/71

mons by Mr. Philip Rudston de Baer seeking a stay of execution of an order for possession of the property obtained by the London Permanent Benefit Building Society. Speak ing of order 45, rule 11, and dealing with the question of whether the Court had juris diction to grant a stay of execution on an order for possession obtained by a legal mortgage the judge held that on its true construction the rule did not confer any power to grant a stay of execution on such an order. The power conferred by that rule was a power to do so "on the ground of matters which have occurred since the date of the judgment or order." It was implicit in the rule that the matters referred to were matters which would have prevented the order being made or would have led to a stay of execution if they had already occurred at the date of the order. (London Permanent Benefit Building Society v. De Baer—November 29th, 1967.) (See Rules of the Superior Courts 1962 Order 47). Privity of Contract Mr. Justice Donaldson decided on two pre liminary issues that foreign Plaintiffs, Teheran-Europe Co. Ltd., carrying on busi ness in Teheran as importers of machinery and other goods, were entitled to claim damages from the Defendants, S. T. Belton (Tractors) Ltd. of Boston, Lincolnshire, an English Company dealing in government surplus goods but breach of a contract for the sale of air compressor units. The Plain tiffs alleged that the goods when delivered did not accord with the contract description, were not of merchantable quality and were not for the purpose for which they were supplied. The former usage of the law merchant that the foreign principal of an English agent did not authorise the agent to establish privity of contract between him and a third party no longer exists. The most that can now be said is that in deciding whether privity of con tract exists between an English supplier and the foreign principal of an English agent the fact that the principal is foreign is a factor to be taken into account. Teheran-Europe Co. Ltd. v. S. T. Belton (Tractors) Ltd., Queen's Bench Division— The Times, 22/12/67).

Breach of Contract — Devaluation Mr. Justice Donaldson described a case in the Queen's Bench Division which came be fore him on November 22nd arising from an award submitting questions of law for the Court's opinion — as illustrating both the general rule of law and the exception: the changes in the relative value of currencies were irrelevant if they occurred after the date at which damages fell to be assessed and were usually to be disregarded if they occurred on or before that date, either be cause the loss flowing from revaluation had no casual connection with the breach because such a loss was not within the assumed con templation of the parties. (Aruna Mills Ltd. v. Dharajmal Gobindram —The Times newspaper, November 23rd, 1967). Town Planning — Development Plan Plaintiff had sought a declaration that the Bray Urban Council had acted ultra vires of the provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, in amending a draft development plan which had been approved on May 16th, 1967, at a meeting on September 26th, 1967; a declara tion that the resolution of the Council adopted on September 26th was null and void in so far as it amended and adopted the draft plan, and a declaration that in so far as the resolution purported to make a development plan, it was null and void. The Court granted all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff and allowed her the costs of the proceedings as well as the costs of an interim and interlocutory injunction already granted to her restraining the Council from making a development plan which included certain provisions in relation to an area not contained in the draft plan, notice of which was published on May 27th, 1967. Mr. Justice Butler stated that it would not be necessary to continue the injunction al ready granted as his judgment meant that the resolution adopted on September 26th had no effect in relation to the plan and if the Council decided to proceed with it, it would not do them any good because the plan could not bind anybody. He stated that he was of opinion that the correct interpre tation of Part 3 of the 1963 Act was that, before making a plan the planning authority must first prepare a draft of their proposals; must give notice of having done so; must 66