The Gazette 1971

of Appeal (1970, 3 W.L.R. 784) upholding a judgment of Mr. Justice Mocatta in favour of Londoti & Overseas Freighters Ltd. (the owners) that where the vessel "London Explorer" had not, by reason of strikes, been redelivered to the owners until after the period specified in a time charter, the charterers had been bound to continue to pay hire for the excess period and the owners were not restricted to a claim for damages (the market rate having fallen). But their Lordships (Lord Reid dissenting) allowed a second appeal by the charterers from the decision of the Court of Appeal, reversing Mr. Justice Mocatta, and held that the arbitrators whose award of $U.S.281,820 he had upheld on a special case stated had not been entitled, under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1950, to award interest at 8 per cent on the award from its date until payment. [Timber Shipping Co. S.A. v London and Overseas Freigh- ters Ltd.; The Times, 15th May 1971.] Mr. Justice Donaldson, in the Queen's Bench Division, upheld an umpire's decision that a grain ship, the "Johanna Olden- dorff", had not "arrived" for the purpose of lay time to count when she arrived at the Bar Anchorage, seventeen miles from the nearest discharging berth at Liverpool/Birkenhead, and which was the usual place where grain, ships lay awaiting a berth. [E.L. Olderdorff and Co. v Tradex Export S.A.; The Times, 18th May 1971.] State Prerogative The Court, in dismissing an interlocutory appeal by the par- ents of James Hanratty, hanged in 1962 for the A6 murder, the plaintiffs in a proposed action against Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, Home Secretary at the time, said no action for damages for negligence can lie against the Home Secretary in respect of the manner in which he carries out his task of advising the Crown how to exercise the prerogative of mercy. Nor can the Courts inquire into, let alone pass an opinion on, the way the Crown prerogative is exercised. [Hanratty and Another v Lord Butler of Saffron Walden; The Times, 13th May 1971.] Statute of Limitations See under Damages; Smith and Others v Central Asbestos Co. Ltd. Ma j or charities, sceptical of claims made by professional fund-raisers, are tending to rely on their own efforts to raise money. Their main objection is that people will not part with money for good causes if subjected to high pressure tactics. People will not give to charities, the charities find, if they fear too large a proportion of their gift is paid in fund-raising organisation fees. ~' Big charities prefer to use a small full-time staff working with voluntary collectors organised into nation- wide committees. They can thus ensure their admin- istration expenses are kept below 15 per cent of their income. 13 p.c. on costs Portsmouth Cathedral's Appeal Fund, which closed recently woefully short of its target, has reinforced the views of many charitable organisations that they would not benefit from engaging professional fund-raisers. The cathedral fund raised only £72,688 towards its target of £400,000. Administrative costs consumed

Succession A widow who was convicted of killing her husband through diminished responsibility was held not to be entitled to take any benefit either under his will or on his intestacy. [In re Giles deceased; The Times, 5th May 1971.] Tribunal Procedure A rent tribunal acting under the Rent Act, 1968, to deter- mine the rent of premises within the Act is an informal tribunal, so that they enter upon consideration of a tenant's application for a reduction of rent when each member has read the relevant papers. Where, therefore, a tenant sought to withdraw his application by a letter not communicated to the tribunal untd after they had read their papers and visited the premises, they had jurisdiction to disregard the withdrawal and to reduce the rent below the figure agreed between tenant and landlord. [Regina v Tottenham Districts Rent Tribunal; The Times; 26th May 1971.] Wills A gift in a will to a non-charitable unincorporated association was held to be capable of taking effect as a gift to the mem- bers of the association as an accretion to the funds subject to the contract binding the members inter se, but the gift failed because the society in question had been dissolved before the date of the will and the contract between the members termin- ated when the society was amalgamated with another unincor- porated society. [In re Ratcher's Will Trusts; The Times, 14th May 1971.] Words and Phrases See under Crime; Regina v Souter; The Times, 25th May 1971. "Resident Abroad"; see under Crime; Brokelmann v Barr; The Times, 20th May 1971. Timber which arrived by ship at Cardiff and was subsequently stacked in timber merchants' yards was no longer "cargo". Accordingly, the timber merchants' workmen were not "dock workers" and the merchants did not need to be licensed under Section 1 (1) of the Docks and Harbours Act, 1966, or registered under Clause 10 (1) of the Dock Workers Employ- ment Scheme, 1967, to employ them. ["Cargo" National Dock Labour Board v John Blend and Co. Ltd. and Others; The Times, 26th May 1971.] £65,000, of which £35,000 went to a fund-raising firm. The Salvation Army's attitude to fund-raising is representative of other large charities. Of an income from legacies and appeals of £1,250,000, about 13 to 14 per cent goes on administrative costs, including the training of officers. Dr. Barnardo's too, prefers to rely on what it de- scribes as its "tried and trusty" methods of fund-raising. Its administrative costs to raise more than £ 3 million a year are about 15 per cent of income. Ox f am collects about £ 3 million a year which takes about 12 p>er cent to raise. The Royal National Life-Boat Institution is also in the £ 3 million bracket, but costs are only a fraction of the sum it raises. Since 1949, Christian Aid has raised £ 20 million. Mr. Hereward Phillips, a professional fund-raiser for 25 years, who was connected with the Portsmouth Cathedral project said: "Competition among charities is so intense that unless they apply the expertise of the professional they stand little chance of making any money."

Big Charities Reject Professional Fund- Raisers

88