The Gazette 1972

Redundancy Where in August 1965 employers manufacturing large diesel engines sold a factory to new employers who took over almost all the labour force, completed the work on four or five engines and then carried on other engineering work in the factory, there was no transfer of the "trade or business" within the meaning of the Contracts of Employment Act, 19 3, and the Redundancy Payments Aci, 1965. Accordingly two employees who had worked in the factory for over twenty years couid claim, on their dismissal for redundancy in 1971. only six years' service for the purposes of redundancy payments. The Court so held in allowing the first appeal from the decision of the National Industrial Relations Court (Sir John Dontldson, President, Mr. J. H. Arkell and Mr. H. Briggsl ([1972] WLR 401), which allowed the appeal of Mr. A. Woodhouse, Nottingham, and another employee, from the deci- sion of an industrial tribunal sitting at Nottingham that they could claim only six years' service for the purpose of their redundancy payments from the new employers, Peter Brother- hood Ltd., engineers, of Peterborough. [Woodhouse and Another v Peter Brotherhood Ltd.; C.A.; 8/5/1972.] An electric arc welder exposed to welding fumes containing oxides of nitrogen and oxides of iron failed in a claim against his employers that the lung illness from which he suffered wa« caused by their negligence or breach of statutory duty. [Cartwright v GKN Sankey Ltd.; Q.B.D.; 8/5/1972.] Sovereign Immunity The Banco Provincial de Salta failed in an application to set aside a writ served on them by the Swiss-Israel Trade Bank over bills of exchange for £279,365 said to have been dis- honoured on presentation. A similar application by another defendant to the action, named as the Government of Salta. was granted on the grounds that it was either the Government of the Argentine Republic or at least a department of that Government and entitled to immunity, [Swiss-Israel Trade Bank v Government of Salta and Another; Q.B.D.; 13/4-/1972.] Tax The trade of newspaper publishers and printers is the provi- sion of newspapers and news and not of hospitality. Accord- ingly expenses incurred in providing meals, drink and enter- tainment to people likely to be able to provide news or other items for publication in their papers are not deductible for income tax purposes under Section 15 (9) of the Finance Act, 1965, as "expenses incurred in . . . the provision . . . of any- thing" which it is their trade to provide. Their Lordships so held in dismissing an appeal by Associated Newspapers Group Ltd. [Associated Newspapers Group Ltd. v Fleming (Inspector of Taxes); House of Lords; (1972) 2 A.E.R. 574] were explored it was arranged that a form of undertaking might be submitted by the Society whereby solicitors with the authority of their clients would agree to furnish to the Revenue all information, accounts and documents which the Revenue might require to assess final value of shares in private limited companies and that on the signing of this undertaking the Revenue might then issue immediate assess- ments provided that the shares concerned were returned at what on first sight appeared to be a reasonable valuation. If a suitable undertaking could be agreed upon, the .Assistant Secretary of the Estate Duty Branch stated that the matter would be brought before the Board of the Revenue Com- missioners for a decision. It was pointed out that assuming that arrangement can be made it would be applied for a trial period and would be continued only if experience shows that undertakings are promptly honoured- by solicitors. The matter is still under discussion with the Revenue. It is realised that only a minority fail to honour undertakings hut the injury to the profession and their clients is disproportionate to the number of cases involved. A further statement on the matter will be published in the Gaxettc in due course.

building safe may necessitate vacating it completely for several months. [Heath v Down; House of Lords; (1972) 2 A.E.R. 561] Negligencc In the present state of our law the owner of a car is not vicariously liable for the negligence of another person who drives it unless the driver is using it for the owner's purposes under delegation of a task or duty. And even the House of Lords in its judicial capacity cannot changc the traditional concept of vicarious liability, inadequate though it may be in the modern world of millions of motor cars, by introducing the concept of making the owner of a "matrimonial" or "family" car liable for negligent driving by the other spouse or any member of the family using the car. Any such innovation must fie made hy Parliament. ?Morgans v Launchbury; House of Lords; (1972) 2 A.E.R. 605] Contractors whose workmen lit a bonfire to hum up the rubbish on a demolition site next to a public park but failed to keep a look-out for children coming on to the site to see the fire were held to be in breach of their duty to a trespassing five-year-old boy who came to see the fire and was severely burned. The Court held that the fact that the same boy had been repeatedly warned off the site was not sufficient fulfilment of the occu- pier's dutv to the trespassing child. [Pannett v P. McGuinness and Co. Ltd.; C.A.; 17/4/72.] Procedure The departmental committee now considering the practice and procedure in adoption proceedings and the County Court Rules Committee should give urgent attention to the divergences between the High Court and County Court Rules. Meanwhile, where psacticgble, County Courts should follow High Court practice in such matters [In re M. (an infant)'; C.A.; 2/5/1972.] A writ served on a partner in a firm of chartered accountants arising from a dispute following the dissolution of the partner- ship in 1957 was struck out on the ground that the delay on the part of the plaintiff, one of the other two partners, was inordinate and inexcusable. [Beatton v Neil and Another; Ch. Div.; 19/4/1972.] The Court has power under the Rules of the Supreme Court to allow a pleading in a representative action to be amended by substituting for the named plaintiff the name of one of the other persons represented; for each person represented in such an action is a "party" and should be allowed to pursue the claim if the named plaintiff discontinues or drops out. [Moon (on behalf of herself and others) v Artherton; C.A.; 18/4/1972.] A deputation from the Council was received by the Assistant Secretary of Revenue and officials of the Estate Duty Office to consider difficulties which arise from the delay in making assessments of death duties leading to grants of representation. The Society had obtained the opinion of Counsel who took the view that the Revenue Commissioners were bound to bring in an assessment without delay on presentation of a sworn Inland Revenue Affidavit containing a realistic valuation of the assets. This is particularly important in the case of valuations of shares of private limited companies. The Revenue officials were not prepared to concede that the position was as stated by the Society's Counsel. They laid particular stress on the chaotic situation which they state would arise in the Estate Duty Office if provisional assessments were made on estimated values. They stated that in some cases undertakings to bring in corrective affidavits have not been carried out and that this is becoming an increasing problem for the Revenue. They also pointed out that in a number of case* where Government stocks are offered in payment of death duties the executors are required to transfer the stocks immediately on the issue of the grant of probate or representation and that in some cases these undertakings have not be-n implemented. After a lengthy discussion in which all aspects of the matter Estate Duty

Assessments

199