The Gazette 1972

CURRENT LAW DIGEST SELECTED

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

report to the court. It is in the discretion of the judge what he should put before them. Rule 9 (2) of the Adoption (County Court) Rules, 1969, which provides for the confidential report to be made, is not ultra vires Section 9 (3) of the Adoption Act 1958 [In re P. A. (an infant); C. of A.; 24/6/1971.] Gaming and Lotteries A person who used premises for collecting correspondence con- nected with a chain-letter scheme known as World Wide Roulette was guilty of conducting an unlawful lottery, con- trary to Section 42 (1) (f) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963. Their Lordships dismissed an appeal by George Atkinson against his conviction by the City of London justices at Guildhall on three counts of using premises for the conduct of an unlawful lottery. Section 42 provides: "(1) . . . every person who in connec- tion with any lottery . . . (f) uses any premises . . . for purposes connected with the promotion or conduct of the lottery . . . shall be guilty of an offence." [Atkinson v Murrell; C. of A.; 22/12/1971.] See under De Minimis; January Gazette, p. 8; Regina v Decorum Gaming Licensing Committee; Q.B.D.; 20/7/1971. Insurance The word "storm" in a policy insuring against risk of damage or destruction by "storm, tempest or flood" must be something more prolonged and widespread than a gust of wind, Mr. Justice Thesiger said when giving judgment with costs for insurers in an action for a declaration that they were liable to the assured. [S&M Hotels Ltd. v Legal and General Assurance Society When a word or phrase was undefined in a statute, the judges had to work out its meaning doing the best they could to inter- pret the will of the legislature in regard to it. A tenant's claim to acquire the freehold or an extended lease under the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, was made in good faith when it was made honestly and with no ulterior motive. Where a tenant desired to buy the freehold in order to avoid the forfeiture of his lease after a conviction for keeping a brothel his claim was not made in good faith. [Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd. v Woolger; C. of A.; 28/7/1971.] Landlord and Tenant The Queen's Bench Divisional Court (the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice O'Connor and Mr. Justice Lawson) refused an application by Frey Investments Ltd. for leave to apply for an order of prohibition prohibiting the Barnet and Camden Rent Tribunal from proceeding with the hearing and determination of references in respect of twenty-two tenancies owned by them by the London Borough of Camden in the exercise of powers conferred by Section. 72 of the Rent Act, 1968, on the ground, inter alia, that the borough had not received from any of the tenants any indication that they desired to refer their tenancies to the tribunal. [Regina v Barnet and Camden Town Tribunal; C. of A.; 29/7/1971.] A contractual tenant of premises within the ratable value limits laid down by the Rent Act, 1965, is entitled to apply to the rent officer to fix a fair rent for the premises and have the tenancy registered at that rent, even though he does not personally occupy the premises as his home. [Feather Suppliers Ltd. v Ingham; C. of A. 10/6/1971.] Their Lordships, in reserved judgments, dismissed an appeal by the tenant, Mr. G. Husan, from the decision of Judge Edward Jones at Liverpool County Court last January that the landlords, Liverpool Corporation, were at liberty to commence forfeiture proceedings for breach of repairing covenants in a lease dated 6th August 1898, of 33 Falkner Square, Liverpool. [Liverpool Corporation v Husan; C. of A.; 28/7/1971.J A lease, which conveys an interest in land, is a demise and 48 Ltd.; Q.B.D.; 18/11/1971.] Interpretation of Statute

Evidence See under Crime; January Gazette, p. 7; Regina v Hilton; C. of A.; 22/7/1971. See under Crime, January Gazette, p. 7; Regina v Prager; C. of A.; 11/11/1/971. See under Crime; January Gazette, p. 7; Regina v Oyesiku; C. of A.; 14/12/1971. Family Though the court will not have regard to the conduct of the parties in determining the property rights of husband and wife in proceedings under Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, it may take conduct into account in deciding, where a house is jointly owned and one party con- tinues to pay all the mortgage instalments after the parties separate, whether the other party shall be given credit for one- half the instalments on the ground that the person remaining in occupation has had the use and benefit of the house. [Cracknell v Cracknell; C. of A.; 22/7/1971.] See under Succession; in re Cummins (deceased); C. of A.; 13/7/1971; see March Gazette. When a court makes a maintenance order in favour of a wife after considering the conduct of the parties under Section 5 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act, 1970, the court should assess a maximum discount figure, a percentage by which, having regard to the conduct of the parties and the duration of the marriage, it would be just to reduce the wife's maintenance if, but only if, no other variable matters had to be considered. [A v A; Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Div.; 12/7/1971.] A judge in a custody case is entitled to take into account his suspicions about a mother's behaviour, even though there is no admissible evidence to support them, and is entitled to ques- tion a child in private about such behaviour if it is necessary to determine what is best for the child's welfare. [S v S; G. of A.; 14/7/1971.] A young wife should not expect her husDt».:d to maintain her for life, his Lordship said when granting a decree nisi to Lance Sergeant Albert Mathias, The Scots Guards, of Wellington Barracks, London, under Section 2 (1) of the Divorce Reform Act, 1969, on the ground that the marriage had irretriev- ably broken down following five years' living apart. [Mathias v Mathias; 24/11/1971.] When a former wife applies under Section 26 of the Matri- monial Causes Act, 1965, for reasonable provision out of her deceased husband's estate, the value of the deceased's net estate should be taken at the date of the hearing and not at the date of his death for deciding questions of quantum. Their Lord- ships also said that there is no prima facie rule of law that any order under Section 26 should be backdated to the date of the deceased's death. [Lusterick v Lusterick; C. of A.; 11/11/1971.] Section 2 (5) of the Divorce Reform Act, 1969, which pro- vides that a husband and wife are living apart "unless they are living with each other in the same household" was declaratory of the existing law, his Lordship held. The law had not been altered in any way by new legislation. [Mouncer v Mouncer; Family Div.; 2/11/1971.] A magistrates' court has jurisdiction to grant an application for a provisional maintenance order by a wife who is ordin- arily resident within its jurisdiction although the husband has never been within the jurisdiction and lives in one of the territories covered by the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920. [Collister v Collister; Family Div.; 18/10/1971.] The parties to an adoption application in the county court have no absolute right to see the guardian ad litem's confidential