The Gazette 1972

1967, failed in an appeal on the ground that the trial judge was wrong in rejecting a submission of no case to answer because there was no evidence o fthe proportion of alcohol in the blood although an analyst's certificate was produced. Their Lordships, in a reserved judgment, dismissed an appeal by J. Banks, of Accrington, from conviction at Lancashire Quarter Sessions (deputy chairman: Judge Lawton) last July. He was fined £25, and disqualified for twelve months. Section 2 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, contains a proviso that an analyst's certificate shall not be evidence of the matters certified "unless a copy has been served on the accused not less than seven days before the hearing", and par. 21 of Schedule 1 to the 1967 Act provides that the copy may be either personally served or sent by registered post or recorded delivery sendee. [Regina v Banks; C.A.; 21/2/1972.] Defamation It is often very desirable and sometimes necessary that where a plaintiff in a libel action complains of words as defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning and that meaning is not clear and explicit, he should be required to give particulars of the inferential meanings (the "non-legal innuendo") which he says the words bear and on which he will rely at the trial, so that the defendant may know in advance how to meet the case against him. [Allsop v Church of England Newspaper Ltd. and Others; C. of A.; 27/2/1972.] Family In custody cases under the Guardianship of Minors Act, 1971, it was wrong to say that orders in favour of both parents should be made only in exceptional cases, the Divisional Court said when allowing a father's appeal against an order by magis- trates granting legal custody of the three children of the family to the mother, with care and control also to her. The court varied the order by giving custody to both parents, provided they would co-operate for the benefit of the minors. [In re J (Minors); Div.Ct.; 28/2/1972.] Names of magistrates should always appear at the top of justices' reasons for their decision in appeals, Sir George Baker, President, said in the Family Division when allowing a father's appeal against an order under the Guardianship of Minors Act, 1971, which gave his daughter's custody to his wife and remitting the case to a new panel of magistrates. [In re N (a Minor); Q.B.D.; 22/2/1972.] There was no inference that a wife who worked for a period for payment and thereafter continued to work to help her husband to support her eight children of an association with another man had an equitable interest in the husband's busi- ness or in the house bought from the proceeds of his business interests. [Heyland v Heyland; C.A.; 26/2/1972.] Adultery is no longer a serious social offence, and there is no reason why direct questions about alleged adultery should not be asked of a party or witness in divorce proceedings by way of pre-trial interrogatories where the answers are necessary for disposing fairly of the cause and for saving costs. [Nest v Nest and Another; C.A.; 26/2/1972.] The same principles of law applied in considering a mistress's share in a house as applied when considering a wife's interest in the matrimonial home. The court must look at the equity at the time the parties separated and not 'at their actual contribution. Their Lordships so held in allowing an appeal by Miss J. C. Cooke, of Bishop Sutton, near Bristol, from a judgment of Mr. Justice Plowman in which he found that she had a one-twelfth share in a bungalow which she had helped to build with the defendant. Mr. D. Head, St. Leonards -on-Sea, Sussex [Cooke v Head; C.A.; 19/1/1972.]

Landlord and Tenant Lord Justice Roskill, in the Court of Appeal, said that it was desirable, as a matter of practice, that indictments charging the offence of persistently withdrawing or withholding services reasonably required for the occupation of premises let by a landlord, contrary to Section 30 (2) of the Rent Act, 1965, should adequately follow' the wording of the statute and "persistently" should be used. [Regina v Abrol; C. of A.; 24/1/1972.] Marine Insurance The Court of Appeal, the Master of the Rolls dissenting, dis- approved of the long-established practice whereby defendant insurers are not bound to give further and better particulars of marine insurance for the loss of a ship when the insurers allege that the ship was deliberately scuttled and that the owners had procured or connived at it. [Astroulanis Compania Neviere SA v Linard; Ch. Div.; 28/2/1972.] Negligence The House of Lords decided that a much criticised decision of its own in 1929, that the only duty an occupier of land owed to a trespasser, whether child or adult, was not to act with reckless disregard of the trespasser's safety when he knew that the trespasser was on his land, was out of date in modern social conditions and should be overruled or modified. [British Railways Board v Harrington; House of Lords; 16/2/1972.] Planning The House of Lords, in test cases, decided by a majority a basis for assessing compensation for agricultural land compul- sorily acquired for a public scheme which will have the effect of greatly increasing the compensation payable where the scheme and planning permission for it have been approved before the notice to treat is served on the owners of such land- Lord Simon, in a strong dissenting judgment, considered that the basis approved by the majority would perpetuate valuation on an unreal basis and would augment injustice. [Rugby Joint Water Board v Footit and Another; Same v Shaw-Fox and Others; 24/2/1972.] Road Traffic Acts See under Crime; Coombs v Kehoe; Q.B.D.; 8/2/1972- Higgins v Bernard; C. of A.; 6/2/1972. Tax Ribena, a product manufactured by Beecham Foods Ltd., wa s held not to be a drug or medicine and therefore not exempt from purchase tax. [Customs and Excise Commissioners v Beecham Foods Ltd.; House of Lords; 26/1/1972]. Trade Descriptions Convictions for offences against the Trade Descriptions Act» 1968, should have been recorded against proprietors of a self- service store who displayed bottles of Ribena priced at 5s 9» with manufacturers' labels worded "The deposit on this bottle is 4d refundable on return" but who exhibited a notice at the check-out point reading "In the interest of hygiene we do not accept the return of any empty bottles. No deposit is charged by us at the time of purchase." Two purchasers were refused a refund. [Doble v David Greig Ltd.; Q.B.D.; 15/2/1972.] Words and Phrases . See under Crime; "special reasons"; ex parte X and Y; C. 0 A.; 18/2/1972.

102