The Gazette 1973

ENGLISH CURRENT LAW DIGEST In reading these cases note should be taken of the differences in English and Irish Statute Law. Companies Banking

for damages for alleged breach of contract in the performances of the services the cross-claim can be relied on as a true defence (other than by way of set-off) which cannot be de- feated by the plaintiff's reliance on any period of limitation. When the claim is for freight, a cross-claim for damages said to have been caused to the goods by the fault of the ship- owners can only be raised by way of set-off or counterclaim and is subject to the limitation provision in Article III, rule 6 of the Hague Rules when incorporated in the contract of carriage. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Polish char- terers, P. H. Z. Rolimpex, from Mr. Justice Mocatta, who affirmed the award of the umpire, Mr. K. S. Rokison, that the claim of the Norwegian shipowners, Henriksens Rederi A / S, to the unpaid balance of freight, found to be £2,476, succeeded and that the charterers' claim for cargo short delivered and damaged was barred by the time limit of one year in the Hague Rules. Leave to appeal was refused. Article III, rule 6, says: " . . . the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods. . . . " Henriksens Rederi A / S v. T. H. Z. Rolimpex; Court of Appeal; 10/7/1973. Copyright Before Lord Justice Russell, Lord Justice Stamp and Lord Justice James, judgment delivered July 4. Suites of chairs and sofas manufactured by the plaintiffs were perfectly ordinary pieces of furniture bought or treated rather for their functional utility than for any appeal to aesthetic taste and the prototypes were not "works ot artistic craftmanship" within section 3(l)(c) of the Copyright Act, 1956, capable of beinp the subject matter of copyright. The court so held in allowing an appeal by the defendants, Restawile Upholstery (Lanes.) Ltd., of Radcliffe, manufac- turers of a suite of chairs and sofas known as the Amazon, from the decision of Mr. Justice Graham ( The Times, Novem- ber 2, 1972; [1973] 1 WLR 144) giving judgment for the plaintiffs, George Hensher Ltd., on their claim for the in- fringement of their copyright in a suite of chairs and a sofa known as the Bronx and certain variants manufactured by them. George Hensher Ltd. v. Restawile Upholstery (Lanes.) Ltd.; Court of Appeal; 6/7/1973. Criminal Law Before Lord Widgery, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Lawton and Mr. Justice Milmo. Justices who disqualified a motorist for one month instead of the mandatory 12 months because he had "done the decent thing" in reporting to the police an accident in which only his own car was involved, were clearly wrong, the Lord Chief Justice said when giving judgment on an appeal by the police prosecutor. Their Lordships allowed an appeal from justices at Wigton, Cumberland, who, on convicting Joseph Armstrong, a lorry driver, of Wigton, on a charge of driving with excess blood- alcohol contrary to section 6 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, fined him £ 25 and disqualified him for one month. Kerr v. Armstrong; Queen's Bench Division; 22/6/1973. Before Lord Justice Roskill, Mr. Justice Thompson and Mr. Justice Stocker. Judgment delivered June 29. A person who fails to say, after arrest and caution by the police, that he has an alibi should not be criticized for his silence, the Court of Appeal held in a judgment in an appeal by Leslie Stewart Lewis, of Bristol, against his conviction at Bristol Crown Court (recorder: Mr. Richard Yorke, QC) of theft and going equipped for theft. Regina v. Lewis; Court of Appeal; 3/7/1973. Convictions of the Federal Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., owners of the motor vessel Huntingdon, and her master, Derek Ernest Moran, for discharging a mixture containing fuel oil contrary to section 1(1) of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955, as amended in 1963, were upheld by the Court of Appeal. Their Lordships rejected a submission that there could only be a conviction of either owners or master but not of 186

The defendants, all three directors of L. & R. Agencies Ltd., who purported to sign, on behalf of the company, a cheque which had omitted the connecting ampersand in its name, were held not to have complied with section 108(1) (c) of the Companies Act, 1948, which requires that "every com- pany shall have its name mentioned in legible characters . . . in all cheques . . . purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the company", and therefore were personally liable under section 108(4)(b) to the plaintiff holder of the cheque for the amount shown on it. Mr. Justice MacKenna, in the Queen's Bench Division, said that it would not be consistent with earlier authorities if he were to hold that a description was sufficient which totally omitted the connecting ampersand. " L. R. Agencies" was not the same thing in sense as " L. & R. Agencies". The omission of a word seemed a worse defect than its transposition or abbreviation. Hendon v. Aldeman and Others; Queen's Bench Division; 16/6/1973. Compensation Negligence Before Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Megaw and Lord Justice Scarman. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, who administer the scheme for ex-gratia payments to victims of crimes of violence, were held to have erred in law in rejecting a claim to compensation by the widow of a police constable killed on duty by deciding that his death was not directly attributable to the attempted prevention of an offence but to his foolhardy driving. The constable was killed in a collision with another police car when he crossed on red traffic lights on his way to a Territorial Army headquarters in response to an emergency radio call that it was suspected that a break-in was about to be made. No break-in in fact took place. The court allowed an appeal by Mrs. Lynda luce, widow of Constable Michael Ince, aged 25, of Stevenage, Hertford- shire, from the decision of the Queen's Bench Divisional Court on November 17 and granted her an order of certiorari to quash the board's decision. The case was remitted to the board for reconsideration. Regina v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; Ex parte Ince; Court of Appeal; 21/7/1973. Contempt of Court Before Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Dip- lock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Cross of Chelsea. The publication of a proposed article in The Sunday Times consisting of detailed evidence and argument intended to show that Distillers Company (Biochemicals) Ltd., the manu- facturers and distributors in this country of a product contain- ing thalidomide, did not exercise due care to see that it was safe before they put it on the market would be a contempt of court so long as any outstanding claims in pending proceedings against them have not been tried or compromised in a negotiated settlement. The terms of the injunction originally granted by the Queen's Bench Divisional Court on November 17, 1972, restraining publication will be settled by the House of Lords on July 25. Their Lordships allowed an appeal by the Attorney General from the Court of Appeal (the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Phillimore and Lord Justice Scarman) ( T he Times, February 17) [1973] 2 WLR 452), which had allowed an appeal by Times Newspapers Ltd., publishers of The Sunday Times, and discharged the original injunction. Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd.; House of Lords; 19 July 1973. Contract Before Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Cairns and Lord Justice Roskill. Judgments delivered July 4. A claim for freight is an exception to the general rule that when there is a claim for services rendered and a cross-claim