The Gazette 1972

CURRENT L AW DIGEST SELECTED

All references to dates relate to The Times newspaper.

In reading these cases note should be taken of the differences in English and Irish statute law.

Damages Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Megaw and Sir Gordon Willmer. Where a girl's prospects of marriage have been diminished as a result of personal injuries, the courts in following the present practice of assessing the damages under itemized headings should guard against the danger of overlapping and should not include the diminished prospects of marriage under more than one heading. Harris (an infant) v. Harris; 11/11/72; C.A. Damages for breach of contract to provide a winter sports holiday are not confined to matters of physical inconvenience and discomfort but may include damages for the disappoint- ment and frustration for not obtaining what was promised. Jarvis v. Swan Tours, Ltd.; 19/10/72; C.A. Easements Before Lord Justice Russell, Lord Justice Edmund Davies and Lord Justice Stamp. [Judgment delivered October 31st] A servient owner's undertaking to repair and maintain ramps, placed on a right of way to stop cars being driven at an excessive speed, is a sufficient remedy for the owner of the dominant tenement because the successor in title to the owner of the servient tenement will be liable for a dis- turbance of the easement if he lets the roadway fall into disrepair so that the ramps become a substantial interference with the right of way. Saint & Another v. Jenner & Another; 6/11/72; C.A. Estate Agents Held that estate agents who had received a pre-contract deposit which was returned to the intending purchaser when the sale fell through were entitled to retain interest which they had received by placing the money on deposit with their bankers. Potters (a firm) v. Loppert; 9/11/72; C.D. Evidence Before Lord Justice Karminski, Mr. Justice O'Connor and Mr. Justice Forbes. [Judgment delivered October 20th] The transcript of evidence given by a witness at a trial which ended in the jury disagreeing and who died before the retrial took place was held to be admissible at the new trial. Regina v. Hall; 23/10/72; C.A. Master and Servant Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Megaw and Sir Gordon Willmer. An employee who was given notice of dismissal before ihe sections of the Industrial Relations Act, 1971, which give a rght to compensation for unfair dismissal came into force, can bring an action against her employers for unfair dismissal where the notice given expired after the sections came into operation, for on the proper interpretation of section 23(2) the contract under which she was employed was terminated on the date when the notice expired. H. W. Smith (Cabinets) Ltd. v. Brindle; 8/11/72; C.A. Negligence Before Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Cross of Chelsea. A widow who had committed adultery and deserted her husband five weeks before he was killed in a road accident failed in her appeal to the House of Lords from decisions dismissing her claim for damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846-1959, because she had not shown that if he had lived there was a reasonable expectation of a reconciliation. Davies v. Taylor; 25/10/72; House of Lords. - 2 7 4

Bills of Exchange Before Lord Reid, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Diplock, Lord Simon of Glaidale and Lord Corss of Ghelsea. The holders of a bill of exchange who knew that it would be dishonoured on presentation on the due date but through a clerical error posted the necessary notice of dishonour early so that it was delivered to the drawer by the same post as the bill was delivered to the bank and dishonoured were held to be entitled to payment on the bill. A majority of the House of Lords decided that where the evidence did not show which of the two pieces of paper—the bill and the notice of dishonour—was received first, it was to be presumed that they took place in the order which would make the notice valid. Applying that presumption the House hold that the dishonour of the bill preceded the notice so that the notice was good. Eaglehill Ltd. v. J. Needham, Builders, Ltd. 26/10/72; House of Lords. Contract Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Buckley and Lord Justice Orr. An indemnity clause in the Road Haulage Association's Conditions of Carriage (1967 revision) which provides that "The trader shall . . . keep the carrier indemnified against all claims or demands whatsoever" in excess of £10 on any one consignment was construed by the Court of Appeal as wide enough to require a trader to indemnify the carrier against a claim for £998 for the loss of three gold watches arising out of the negligence of the carrier's own servant. Gillespie Bros. & Co. Ltd. v. Roy Bowles Transport Ltd. and Rennie Hogg, Ltd.; 25/10/72; C.A. Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Edmund Davies and Lord Justice Stephenson. The RIBA Standard Form of Building Contract Local Authorities Edition with Quantities (1968 revision) was strongly criticized by the court as "a farrago of obscurities" and the redrafting of some of its clauses recommended to make clear precisely what had to be done to constitute taking possession of a part of works in progress, with consequential shift of fire insurance risks, where the parties know that a factory will continue working during building operations. English Industrial Estates Corporation v. George Wimpey & Co. Ltd. 3/11/72; C.A. Crime Before Lord Justice Lawton, Mr. Justice Chapman and Mr. Justice Wien. [Judgment delivered October 20th] The court certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved in their decision to dismiss appeals against conviction under section 25(1) of the Immigration Act, 1971, namely, "Whether the offence created by section 25(1) of being knowingly concerned in carrying out arrange- ments for facilitating entry into the United Kingdom of any- one whom he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be an illegal entrant may be committed by actions of the accused performed after the time of disembarkation of an illegal entrant". Regina v. Singh; Regina v. Meeuwsen; 23/10/72; C.A. Before Lord Justice Lawton, Mr. Justice Chapman and Mr. Justice Wien. A man who was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for driving 25 yards while disqualified—which he has already served—was given in substitution a one day's sentence, which meant his immediate discharge. An order activating a six months' suspended sentence, which he had already begun to serve, was quashed, thus leaving the suspended sentence still running. Regina v. Smithers; 19/10/72; C.A