The Gazette 1972

Where a police officer in purported exercise of functions under Sections 186 (1) and 186 (2) of the Licensing Act, 1964, sought to enter licensed premises for the purpose of preventing or detecting the commission of an offence against the Act, other than an offence under Section 155 or Section 157, it was held that he must have had reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence was being or had been committed. [Valentine v Jackson; Q.B.D.; 11/11/1971.] Customs and Excise When the Commissioners of Customs and Excise take condem- nation proceedings over forfeiture of imported goods pursuant to Section 275 of, and Schedule 7 to, the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, the questions to be determined are whether the goods have been imported and whether their import is prohi- bited. The identity of the importer is irrelevant. Naming a person as the importer in the commissioners' complaint is a piece of unnecessary information and does not prevent the condemnation order from being made even though the person named is found not to be the importer. [Darton v John Lister Ltd. and Another; Q.B.D.; 28/6171.] Damages A dentist who ordered a new Rover 2000 to replace one which became a total loss in an accident, instead of buying a second- hand car, was held to have acted reasonably. He was entitled to the cost of hiring alternative transport for the time it took to obtain the new car, even though he could have acquired a secondhand car much sooner. [Moore v DER Ltd.; C. of A.; 18/6/1971.] It is desirable that the Court of Appeal when hearing an appeal against an award of damages should be in the same position as the trial judge and should not know the amount which defendants to the action paid into court before the trial. [Thornton v Swan Hunter (Shipbuilders) Ltd.; C. of A.; 25/10/1971.] Although Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1971, affords relief from taxation on the interest element in an award of damages for personal injuries or death under Section 3 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, the 1971 Act has not affected the rate of interest which is to be awarded in accordance with the Jefford v Gee principles ([1970] 2 Q.B. 130). [Mason v Another and Herman; Q.B.D.; 22/12/1971.] A boy aged five who was so badly injured in a car accident that he will have to spend the rest of his life supported by the State in a National Health institution was held to be entitled to damages for loss of future earnings without deduction oi a sum for housing and maintenance expenses which an injured person would otherwise incur. [Daish v Welton; C. of A.; 15/10/1971.] Defamation A defamatory article in a popular daily newspaper may be capable of being held to refer to a person who is neither named nor described in it if it is proved that ordinary sensible people scanning their newspaper without great attention to detail, in the way ordinary people generally do, conclude, because of special facts known to them, that it refers to the unidentified person. It is not necessary that there should be any peg or pointer in the article itself on which to hang the alleged identification of the plaintiff as the person referred to. [Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd. and Another; House of Lords; 29/6/1971.]

Alegations in British national newspapers of reports that the Maltese Labour Party had received secret payments of £125,000 for their "election expenses" in the forthcoming general elec- tion from the Libyan Government were held by the court not to be plainly defamatory though capable of being held by a jury to be defamatory, and accordingly in the interest of free- dom of the press and of political controversy should not be the subject of an interim injunction against repetition. [Mintoff v Daily Telegraph Ltd.; C. of A.; 11/6/1971.] The Queen's Bench Division in England laid down the prin- ciples applicable there on an appeal by the plaintiff from an order of a Master that the action be tried with a jury. It was stated that the action promised to be one of the most compli- cated libel actions yet fought and that the time for trial would be calculated in weeks not days. If the action were one of the great bulk of cases in the Queen's Bench Division there would nowadays be no likelihood of a judge granting trial by jury. But libel was a type of case in a special category in respect of which an order for jury trial was to be ordered under Section 6 (1) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Pro- visions) Act, 1933, "unless the judge is of opinion that the trial requires any prolonged examination of documents or accounts which cannot conveniently be made with a jury but save as aforesaid any action to be tried in that division may in the discretion of the judge be ordered to be tried with or without a jury". The Queen's Bench Division allowed an inter- locutory appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the Master that the action be tried with a jury. Counsel for the defendants urged as one of the grounds for contending for trial by jury that a jury did not have to give its reasons. The court thought that in a complicated case the obligation to give the reasons tended to concentrate the mind admirably. The court was satisfied that if a jury were to try the case with all its many complicated issues they would be innundated by a sea of docu- ments and that accordingly it was in the interests of the administration of justice that trial be by judge alone. [Rothermere and Others v Times Newspapers Ltd. and Others; Q.B.D.; 21/12/1971.] De Minimis A slip of the tongue by a chairman of justices when announcing a sentence did not render the justices functi officio so as to prevent the slip being corrected immediately afterwards, and the corrected sentence was held to be valid by the Divisional Court. [Regina v Newcastle-upon-Tyne Justices ex parte Seveles; Q.B.D.; 8/12/1971.] Prima facie any departure from a strictly enforced code in the Gaming Act, 1968, relating to general provisions for "appli- cation for grant of licence" renders a step in the procedure in which an error is made ineffective, but there must be reason in all things, and a trivial typographical error does not invalidate a notice published in a newspaper. The Divisional Court so decided when granting an appli- cation by E.M.I. Cinemas and Leisure Ltd. for an order of mandamus requiring the gaming Licensing Committee of Dacorum, Hertfordshire, to hear and determine according to law an application for the grant of a licence to E.M.I, in respect of the A.B.C. Social Club at the Rex Cinema in Berkhamsted to enable bingo to be played there. [Regina v Decorum Gaming Licensing Committee; Q.B.D.; 20/7/1971.]

Avis executive credit cards Members recently received with the approval of the Society executive credit cards from Avis Rent a Car (Ireland) Ltd. These credit cards entitle holders to car renting facilities in Ireland and elsewhere. As is the case with all credit card clubs holders of cards are liable for payments incurred by persons using thee ards. Any member who does not wish to retain the card is, of

course, entitled to return it to the company. Similarly any Avis credit card holder who mislays his credit card or whose card is stolen should notify the company immediately so that the card may be cancelled. Once Avis have been notified of a lost card no liability rests with the holder.

8