147 / 262
moderation in claims for personal injuries and the reasonable
expenses appropriate to a normal person should not be in-
creased by the exceptional personality of the injured person.
The court, in reserved judgments, allowed an appeal by
the first defendant, Mrs. Patricia Harrison, of Walton-on-the-
Hill, Surrey, against the award of £72,616 damages to the
plaintiff, Mr. Ronald Cunningham, of Sutton, Surrey, by Mr.
Justice Brabin last December. The damages were reduced to
£59,316. A cross-appeal by Mr. Cunningham was dismissed.
Leave to appeal was refused.
Cunningham v. Harrison and Another; Court of Appeal;
18/5/1973.
Extradition
Before Lord Wilberforce, Lord Hodson, Lord Diplock, Lord
Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Salmon.
"Offence . . . of a political character" in section 3(1) of
the Extradition Act, 1870, means an offence of a political
character vis-á-vis the state requesting extradition. A fugitive
is not protected against surrender where the crime committed
by him in the territory of the requesting state was directed
against the regime not of that state bui of a third state.
Their Lordships (Lord Wilberforce and Lord Simon
dissenting) dismissed an appeal by Tzu-tsai Cheng, at present
detained in Pentonvijle prison, from the rejection by the
Divisional Court (the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice James
and Mr. Justice Eveleigh) on January 24 of his application
for habeas corpus.
Section 3(1) reads: "A fugitive criminal shall not be
surrendered if the offence in respect of which his surrender
is demanded is one of a political character, or if he proves
to the satisfaction of the police, magistrate or the court before
whom he is brought on habeas corpus, or to the Secretary
of State, that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been
made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a
political character."
The appellant was convicted by the Supreme Court of New
York in May, 1970, of the attempted murder of one Chiang
Ching-kuo. After conviction he failed to surrender to his bail
and left for Sweden, which subsequently, acceded to the
United States' request for extradition. The appellant fell ill
on the journey back and landed at London Airport in Septem-
ber, 1972. He was detained by order of the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate (Sir Frank Milton) pursuant to a request by the
United States authorities under the 1870 Act for his extra-
dition. He now awaited delivery to the United States.
Cheng v. Governor of Pentonville Prison; House of Lords;
17/5/1973.
Family
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Buckley and Lord Justice Stephenson. Judgments delivered
April 13.
A wife who claimed in divorce proceedings a declaration
under section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882,
that she had an equitable interest in a house, bought by her
husband long before the marriage, was held to have no right
of property in the house under that Act, though she might
have a claim under the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property
Act, 1970.
Their Lordships so held when they allowed an appeal by a
former husband, Mr. Cyril Kowalczuk, of Baldock, and
remitted to Mr. Registrar Elliot in the Luton District Registry,
Family Division, for reconsideration under the 1970 Act his
award to the former wife, Mrs. Maria Kowalczuk, of Luton,
of a quarter share interest in the house in Baldock, on her
application under the 1882 Act.
Kowalczuk v. Kowalczuk; Court of Appeal; 26/4/1973.
Infants
Before Mr. Justice Brightman.
Guardians ad litem for infants under the Variation of
Trusts Act, 1958, should not be mere ciphers, his Lordship
said when approving an arrangement under the Act. He ruled
that the absence of any real consent on the part of the
guardians in the present case did not in the circumstances
deprive the court of jurisdiction to approve the arrangement.
The application was by Mrs. Olive Whittall, of Yarmouth,
Isle of Wight, for approval of an arrangement under the Act,
varying trusts declared by her late husband, Arthur Whittall,
in a settlement dated November 28, 1953.
Whittall v. Faulkner and Others; Chancery Division;
10/5/1973.
Insurance
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Stamp and Lord Justice James.
Where the risk of a servant's negligence is covered by
insurance, his employer should not seek to make the servant
liable for it and the courts should not compel him to allow
his name to be used to do it.
This was stated by the Master of the Rolls, when the
court, Lord Justice Stamp dissenting, allowed an appeal by
the fourth party, Mr. Frederick Roberts, of Liverpool, against
the decision of Mr. Justice Hollings last April that the third
party, Cameron Industrial Services Ltd., of London, were
entitled to be subrogated to the right of action of the de-
fendants, Ford Motor Co. Ltd., of Regent Street, London
(upon payment to the defendants of the agreed amount of
damages and costa) against the fourth party to recover
complete idemnity in respect of the claim of the plaintiff, Mr.
Eric Morris, of Halewood, Liverpool, against the defendants.
Morris v. Ford Motor Co. Ltd. and Others; Court of Appeal;
28/3/1973.
Before Lord Justice Davies, Lord Justice Megaw and Sir
Gordon Willmer. Judgment delivered April 4.
Their Lordships allowed, an appeal by the Export Credits
Guarantee Department from a decision of Mr. Justice Cooke
last June that where an insurance recovery was received in
United States dollars after devaluation of sterling in 1967
the Department, as insurers who had paid the amount of the
loss in sterling before devaluation, were not entitled to receive
any of the excess sum received when the dollars were converted
into sterling at the devaluated rate.
His Lordship had given judgment against the Department
in favour of the plaintiffs, L. Lucas Ltd., of Finsbury Square,
London, in a claim against the Department arising out of a
policy of insurance (described as a contract of guarantee).
Their Lordships gave leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
L. Lucas Ltd. and Another v. Export Credits Guarantee
Department; Court of Appeal; 6/3/1973.
Landlord and Tenant
Before Mr. Justice Caulfield.
A local authority who were in breach of covenant to repair
a house that they had leased and which was included in a
clearance area after the authority's medical officer of health
had condemned it as unfit for human habitation, were held
to have damaged the reversion for which the owners were
entitled to damages from the date of a notice of entry under
a compulsory purchase order made by the authority.
Mr. Justice Caulfield gave reserved judgment for Hibernian
Property Co. Ltd. for £1,465 with interest and costs in their
claim for damages against Liverpool Corporation for breach
of covenant to repair a house at 2 Uhlan Street, Liverpool,
which they held over after expiry of a lease of 1875.
Hibernian Property Co. Ltd., Liverpool
Corporation;
Queen's Bench Division; 3/4/1973.
Litigant in Person wins Jury Trial
The Court of Appeal (the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Stamp and Lord Justice James) allowed an appeal by a
litigant in person, Mr. Terence Beesley, of Sidcup, Kent, the
plaintiff in an action for damages for professional negligence
against John L. Williams, solicitors, a firm, of Southampton
Row, London, against the decision of Mr. Justice Forbes last
November that the trial of the action should be by judge alone
and not with a jury.
The Master of the Rolls said that the case appeared in the
Daily Cause List as "Beesley v. A Solicitor". That was wrong.
When there was an action for negligence against a solicitor
it appeared at first instance and on appeal as an ordinary listed
appeal with the solicitor's name appearing. There had been
a mistake in the Appeal Office.
The question of trial with a jury had been considered in
Ward v. James
([1966] 1 QB 273, 295). In addition there
were cases where the views of the individual himself and his
desire to be tried with a jury should be put into the scale.
The complications of the case could be outweighed by the
importance to the parties of issues of credibility, honour and
integrity. His Lordship would accede to trial with a jury.
Beesley v. Willians; 12/3/1973.
Local Government
Before Lord Justice Russell, Lord Justice James and Mr.
Justice Plowman.
A local authority was held to have power under section 15
of the Public Health Act, 1936, in constructing a public
surface water sewer, to demolish a bungalow after giving
reasonable notice.
The court allowed an appeal by Esher Urban District
Council from the decision of Mr. Justice Megarry ([1972] Ch
515) whereby the plaintiffs, Mrs. Marjorie Hutton and her
father, Mr. John Holtby, the owners of a bungalow in Queen's
146