The Gazette 1972

Race Relations A rule by Ealing London Borough Council that to be accepted on its waiting list, an applicant for housing accommodation must be a British subject was held not to be unlawful as being a discrimination on the ground of "national origins" within Sec- tions 1 (1) and 5 of the Race Relations Act, 1968, and the authority was entitled to seek a declaration to that effect in the High Court. [Ealing London Borough Council v Race Relations Board; H. of L.; 16/12/1971.] See under Clubs; January Gazette, p. 6; Race Relations Board v Cheeter and Others; C. of A.; 14/12/1971. Redundancy His Lordship ruled that journalists employed by Associated Newspapers Ltd., made redundant by the absorption of the Daily Sketch by the Daily Mail and by changes in the produc- tion of the London Evening News were not persons "retiring with the consent of the company" so as to entitle them to deferred pensions under an early retirement clause in the rules of the Harmsworth Pension Fund, a non-contributory pension scheme. His Lordship further ruled that such persons were not entitled to redundancy payments under the terms of their contracts of employment. [Young and Others v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others; Ch. Div.; 22/7/1971.] An offer in writing under Section 3 (2) (b) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, need not be contained in one document provided that the document refers to other documents intended to form part of the offer or that the circumstances imply that they could be understood as forming part of the offer. [Ramseyer Motors Ltd. v Broadway and Another; G. of A.; 7/10/1971.] A stiike or lock-out can continue after the strikers have been dismissed. Therefore, where a workman is dismissed by his employer while on strike and is afterwards re-engaged, the period between his dismissal and his re-engagement does not break the continuity of his employment for the purposes of claiming under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965. [Bloomfield and Others v Springfield Hosiery Finishing Co. Ltd.] A taxicab driver who gave the taxi owner 65 per cent of the takings registered on the clock and the cost of an employed person's national insurance stamp was not an "employee" for the purposes of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, and there- fore not entitled to a redundancy payment when the taxi was sold. [Challinor v Taylor National; National Industrial Relations Court; 22/10/1971.] In deciding whether an employee is not to be taken to be dis- missed by his employer under Section 3 (2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, if his contract of employment is renewed or he is re-engaged by the same employer under a new contract, the individual terms of the contracts are to be looked at and not the contracts as a whole. [Rose v Harry Trickett and Son Ltd.; Q.B.D.; 19/7/1971.] Registered Lands A caution under Section 54 (1) of the Land Registration Act, 1925, can be lodged by a person with an interest in the pro- ceeds of sale of land. This is in accordance rather than aga.inst the scheme of the Act. [Elias Mitchell and Another; Ch. Div.; 9/12/1971.] Road Traffic Acts Justices who accepted a motorist's plea of guilty to a charge of failing without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen for & laboratory test contrary to Section 3 (3) of the Road Safety Act, 1967, were wrong to conclude that matters of possible defence were special reasons for not ordering him to be disqualified in accordance with Section 5 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1962. [Hockin v Weston; Q.B.D.; 29/7/1971.] A woman who drove in the wrong direction on the fast lane of a dual carriageway road at midnight and was convicted of dangerous driving without being allowed to give evidence explaining that it was not her fault that she was there, suc-

said to be "getting on in years", was not doing enough to make sure that the children crossed in safety. [Toole (an infant) v Shelbourne Pouffes Ltd. and Another: 28/7/1971.] The law of negligence was extended to a new area when a local council was held liable to the purchaser of a house which devel- oped defects some years after it had been built because the council's building inspector had been negligent in approving the building at foundation level and had failed to see that it was being built on an old rubbish tip. [Dutton v Bognor Regis U.D.C.; C. of A.; 17/12/1971.] Patents Their Lordships, sitting as patents appeal tribunal, in a reserved judgment, allowed an appeal by Schering AG, of Berkamen, Germany, from the refusal of the superintending examiner of patents to register a method of contraception on the ground that the process was incapable of protection under the Patents Act, 1949, as it was a process for the treatment of human beings. They directed that the application should be allowed to proceed. [In re Schering AG Application; Ch. Div.; 12/7/1971.] The manufacture and sale of a substance which is blended with others in such a way that its identity is not discoverable from the product sold was held not to be a non-secret prior user within Section 14 (1) (e) and (3) of the Patents Act, 1949, so as to prevent the subsequent grant of a patent to someone else for the substance. [Ex parte Beecham Group Ltd.; Q.B.D.; 13/10/1971.] Planning Advertisements on the walls of public houses depicting the figure of a man, an open packet of cigarettes and a glass of beer did not contain "figures, symbols, emblems or devices within the meaning of Regulation 14 (2) (a) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations, 1969, so that the height limit of 0.75 metre did not apply to the subjects depicted. The Divisional Court so derided in a reserved judg- ment dismissingwith costs the appeal of a prosecutor against the decision of Bury justices last November. [McDonald v Howard Cook Advt. Ltd.; Q.B.D.; 19/10/71.] Privilege His Lordship rejected claims by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for legal professional privilege and Grown privilege in respect of certain documents obtained for assessing purchase tax valuation in arbitration proceedings between them and Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd., of Clapham. He ordered the commissioners to file within fifteen d a p a further affidavit specifying the documents which were communi- cations between them and their solicitors for the purpose solely of obtaining or giving legal advice or assistance, and to produce for inspection immediately thereafter the remaining documents. He granted leave to appeal. The rule as to professional privilege was one which protected communications between a client and his professional legal adviser. It did not protect communications inside any organisa- tion which had an internal legal branch or department with that legal branch. By no stretch of imagination could the com- missioners be regarded as lay clients of their own legal branch. [Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd. v Commis- sioners of Customs and Excise; Q.B.D.; 15/7/1971.] Procedure See under Damages; January Gazette, p. 8; Thornton v Swan Hunter (Shipbuilders) Ltd.; C. of A.; 25/10/1971. See under Negligence; Lane v Willis; C. of A.; 1/12/1971. (page 48) Because of uncertainty about what was said in the summing-up due to the inadequacy of a shorthand note taken by an inexperi- enced shorthand writer, the court allowed an appeal by John Raymond Spillane, and quashed his conviction. Lord Justice Megaw emphasised that it was the duty of the judge, counsel and court officials to see that the evidence and summing-up in a criminal trial were properly recorded. [Regina v Spillane; C. of A.; 8/10/1971.] Property See under Family; Cracknell v Cracknel!; C. of A.; 22/7/1971. (page 49)

ceeded in an appeal against conviction. [Regina v Gosrey; C. of A.; 5/7/1971.] 50