The Gazette 1971

refused to recognise AEF. Finally, in July 1970, AEF members went on strike, and an interim injunction was obtained. But Pringle J. refused to grant an interlocu- tory injunction in August 1970 : an appeal was made to the Supreme Court on 7th September and no order was made on the footing that the pickets would be discontinued; for three weeks, before this appeal came on, the company suffered much loss, as many workers refused to pass the AEF picket, which did not concern them. It must now be determined whether there was a lawful "trade dispute", or whether there was unlawful watching and besetting. There was no attempt by the company to coerce the defendants to give up their membership of AEF and to join another union; the company merely adopted a laissez-faire attitude. There is no doubt but that the original offer of employment was conditional to their becoming members of NEETU, and that they had agreed to this. If the employer is to abide by his agreement with the shop union, he cannot recognise an outside union. There is little doubt from the definition of "trade dispute" in the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, that there was no dispute between the com- pany and AEF. The requirement by the company that beforehand the workers should join a particular trade union cannot create a trade dispute subsequently, if they do not do so. The company cannot be forced to break an agreement with a shop union to placate the defendants. It is therefore clear that a recognition dis- pute is not a trade dispute. [Becton-Dickinson v Lee (No. 2); McLoughlin J.; unreported; 14th December 1970.] BOOK REVIEWS Revenue Law by Barry Pinson, LL.B.; London, Sweet and Maxwell, 1970; £2.90. This is the fourth edition of a book, first published in 1962, but a considerable amount of the text has been rearranged in the present edition to conform with recent tax legislation in England. The author states that his main object is to set out "the principles of revenue law in as reasonable and intelligible a form as the sub- ject matter allows". In this he has admirably succeeded. The author also expresses the view, the book will be of value to practising lawyers or accountants, not expert in the revenue field who wish to. acquire a sufficient working knowledge of taxation to sense where a prob- lem exists. There are, unfortunately, many people, who fail to "sense when a problem exists". Many fail to do so, apparently having never heard of taxable emolu- ments (so admirably dealt with in chapter three of this work) until faced with a query from an inspector of taxes. Others fail to sense the existence of a problem until receipt of a demand for an account from the estate duty office, apparently never having learned of the liability to estate duty on gifts inter vivos nor that a succession duty remains as a charge on lands sold long after a death, which may be payable by a subse- quent purchaser whose advisers did not "sense when a problem exists". The study of this work alone should indicate when and how a revenue problem may arise in connection with conveyancing, the drafting of wills, contracts of employment and many of the non revenue matters which form a large part of the legal practi- tioners everyday business. To the lawyer who knows something about revenue law, the book should also prove helpful. The index sets out clearly the matter with which each chapter deals. 23

gave birth to premature twins seven months old on 23rd December 1962. Both parties had lived in Cork city to the time of the birth, but then went to live with the wife's parents in Go. Cork, but in separate rooms. As the wife did not appear at the trial, O'Keeffe P. held that this marriage was induced by fraud and fear, and that the marriage had not been consummated. In accordance with the principle enunciated in Griffith v Griffith (1944) IR 35, the wife was given fourteen days to make an application to maintain the marriage bond, failing which a decree of nullity would be pronounced. [Kelly v Kelly; unreported; O'Keeffe C.; 16th Feb. 1971.] Negligence Shipping collision in Killybegs Harbour in February 1966. The Harbour Master, being an official of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, directed the plaintiff, the master of the "Ardent", to move from the West side to the East side of Killybegs pier. As the tide was low, the "Ardent" could not see that the "Ramona" owned by the first two defendants was approaching: it was the duty of the Harbour Master to warn the "Ardent" which he did not do; the consequent collision between the "Ardent" and the "Ramona" was inevit- able, and was entirely due to the negligence of the Harbour Master. Consequently agreed damages for the collision" were assessed against the Minister for £1,264 and costs, and the Minister will have to pay the fees of the nautical assessor who sat with the Judge. [Orpen v Jan and Cornelius Van der Schoot and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries; Kenny J.; unreported; 22nd June 1970.] Practice Previous directions necessary for technological equip- ment. Plaintiff alleges that he was libelled in a tele- vision programme about moneylending on the "Seven Days" programme on 11th November 1969. The ques- tion arose at what stage of the proceedings should the videotape of this television film be shown to the jury. Murnaghan J. stated that he would have to approve in advance of the technical arrangements for the television performance, and that an application for directions should be made beforehand to him. If approval was given to the technical arrangements, Murnaghan J. held that this television transmission should be shown to the jury at the end of the plaintiff's evidence. Per Murnaghan J. —I take this opportunity of stating my opinion that, if, in this technological age, a party to an action should consider it necessary that, as part of his case, a physical demonstration should be given by any apparatus whether in court or otherwise, an inter- locutory application should be brought seeking the approval of the court to such a demonstration. The Rules of the Superior Courts do not specifically deal with matters of this kind, consequently, in the absence of a specific rule, it is a matter for the Court to lay down its own procedure. [O'Brien v Radio Telefis Eireann; Murnaghan J.; unreported; 10th February 1971.] Trade Unions Becton-Dickinson v Lee (No. 1) was a dispute as to recognition between unions, which caused a strike in plaintiff's hypodermic syringe factory in Dun Laogh- aire. It will be recalled that the plaintiffs had an agree- ment with ITGWU and N.E.E.T.U. by which they agreed only to recognise those unions (see Gazette, 1970, 200). Five former members, who belonged to AEF, refused to join other unions, and the company