148 / 262
Drive, Thames Ditton, Surrey, obtained a declaration that
the council had no power to enter and pull it down or
demolish it.
Hutton and Another v. Esher Urban District Council; Court
of Appeal; 7/4/1973.
Medical Reports
Before Mr. Justice Bean. Judgment delivered May 17.
A man suing his employer for damages for personal injuries
was held to be unreasonable in refusing to submit to a
medical examination requested by the employer except on the
condition that the report was shown to him immediately
without his offering his own medical report in exchange.
Mr. Justice Bean allowed an appeal by the employer, Mr.
Frank Burke, of Tottenham, against the refusal of Master
Jacob to make an order staying all further proceedings in the
action on the ground that Mr. Daniel McGinley, of
Kensington, had unreasonably refused to submit himself to a
medical examination on behalf of Mr. Burke.
McGinley v. Burke; Queen's Bench Division; 22/5/1973.
Negligence—Damages for Flooding
Before Lord Justice Davies, Lord Justice Stephenson and
Lord Justice Lawton.
A council tenant whose house was flooded when the cold
water tank burst was entitled to damages against the council
because of their failure to keep it in repair.
Their Lordships allowed an appeal by Mr. Jeffrey Sheldon,
of West Bromwich, against the dismissal by Judge Harington
at West Bromwich County Court last May of his claim for
damages against the landlords, West Bromwich Corporation.
Sheldon v. West Bromwich Corporation; Court of Appeal;
27/3/1973.
Planning
Before Lord Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Diplock,
Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Salmon.
The forecourt of a petrol filling station is not a "building"
and accordingly not "business premises" for the purposes of
the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)
Regulations, 1969. Advertisements affixed to the forecourt
exceeding 4.5 square metres in total area therefore need
the express consent of the local authority. But advertisements
affixed to canopies over pumps may be exempt.
The House of Lords dismissed an appeal by Heron Service
Stations Ltd. from a decision of the Queen's Bench Divisional
Court (the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Shaw and Mr.
Justice Wien) holding in favour of the local authority prose-
cutor for the borough of Hounslow that advertisements ex-
ceeding an aggregate are of 4.5 square metres displayed on
the forecourt of a filling station contravened regulations 6
and 8 (1) of the 1969 Regulations and section 63 (2) of
the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. The Divisional
Court remitted 10 informations to Brentford justices, who
had dismissed them, with a direction to convict. Their Lord-
ships held that only nine of the informations should be
remitted.
Heron Service Stations Ltd. v. Coupe; 5/4/1973.
Rating Liability
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Ashworth and Mr. Justice Bridge.
An absent husband was held to be liable for rates of a
house which he jointly owned with his mother-in-law who
lived there with his wife to whom he was paying £ 5 a week
under a maintenance order.
Their Lordships allowed an appeal by Bromley London
Borough Council, the rating authority, against the decision
of Bromley justices that Mr. Michael Brooks was not
liable for the payment of £101 rates on a house in Woodside
Avenue, Chislehurst, which became due since the mainten-
ance order was made in July, 1970. An order was made direct-
ing the justices to issue a distress warrant for the amount
claimed by the rating authority, being half of the total rates,
the other half having been paid by the mother-in-law.
Bromley London Borough Council v. Brooks; 12/4/1973.
Redundancy
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Buckley and Lord Justice Orr.
Seven china clay workers who lived 30 miles from their
employers' works and had been provided with free bus trans-
port as a term of their contracts of employment were held
not to have been dismissed "by reason of redundancy" and not
entitled to payments under the Redundancy Payments Act,
1965, when the employers found it uneconomic to continue to
provide the bus and the men gave up their jobs as a result.
Their Lordships dismissed appeals by seven workmen from
Port Isaac, Cornwall, formerly employed by the Rostowrack
China Clay Co. Ltd., of St. Stephen, Cornwall, from the
National Industrial Relations Court (Sir John Donaldson
presiding)
(
The
Times,
November 10, 1972; [1973] ICR 50),
which had dismissed their appeals from the industrial tribunal's
decision that they had not been dismissed by reason of
redundancy.
Chapman and Others v. Goonvean and Rostowrack China
Clay Co. Ltd.; Court of Appeal; 17/4/1973.
Restraint of Trade—Too Wide and Unreasonable
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Orr and Lord Justice Lawton.
Restrictive covenants in service agreements between a debt
collecting agency company and sales representatives and col-
lectors in Birmingham "for a period of six months . . . after
the determination of the . . . employment" not to "solicit
business from any person . . . firm or companies who shall a
any time during the continuance of his employment . . . have
been a client of the company .. . within the area specified
.. .", the area of restriction being described as "Birmingham/
Glasgow/Lrrds/Liverpool/London/Manchester", were held to
be too wide and in unreasonable restraint of trade.
The court allowed an appeal by the defendants, Mr.
Laurence Batey, of Birmingham; Mr. Philip Carr, of Wateror-
ton; Mr. Anthony Coats, of Great Barr, and Mr. David
Groves, of Solihull, against an injunction granted by Mr.
Justice Shaw in March to the plaintiffs, Financial Collection
Agencies (UK) Ltd., of Lee Green, London, restraining "the
defendants and each of them until June 30, 1973, by them-
selves, their servants or agents from soliciting business on
behalf of themselves or of any other person or persons, firm
or company from any person or persons firm or companies
who shall at any time during the continuance of their respec-
tive employment by the plaintiffs have been a client of the
plaintiffs."
Financial Collection Agencies (UK) Ltd. v. Batey and
Others; Court of Appeal; 3/5/1973.
Road Traffic Acts
Before Lord Justice Edmund Davies, Lord Justice Stephen-
son and Lord Justice Roskill. Judgments delivered March 6.
In so far as the Highway Code (1968 edition, pages 7 and
35) may be read as indicating that, if traffic indicators and
stoplights are both fitted and in good working order, arm
signals need never be used it was unwise advice and should
not universally be adopted.
This view was expressed by Lord Justice Edmund Davies
when the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal and cross-
appeal on an apportionment of damages by Mr. John Willett,
the first defendant, and S. J. Harris (Transport) Ltd., the
second defendants (owners of a motor van driven by an
employee, Mr. Thomas Orr), who had been held liable in
negligence for an accident in March, 1967, which caused the
death of another motorist, Mr. Rodney Kelly.
Mr. Justice Cumming-Bruce, at Leeds Crown Court in
March, 1972, had awarded Mr. Kelly's widow, Mrs. Eileen
Goke (now remarried) £23,461 damages on her claims under
the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1946-1959, and the Law Reform
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, and apportioned the
blame as to one-third against Mr. Willett and two-thirds as
against Harris Transport.
Goke v. Willett and Another; 7/3/1973.
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice
James and Mr. Justice Nield.
Rationalization of decided cases relating to driving with
excess blood-alcohol contrary to section 1 of the Road Safety
Act, 1967, was an impossible task, the Lord Chief Justice
said when giving judgment on an appeal by a motorist who
had been stopped by police during a search for sheep rustlers
and was convicted of contravening section 1.
Their Lordships dismissed the appeal of William Herd,
aged 37, of Oakworth, Yorkshire, from conviction at Leeds
Grown Court (Judge Hartley) last July. He was fined £40
and disqualified for 12 months.
Regina v. Herd; 13/3/1973.
Before Lord Justice Lawton, Lord Justice Scarman and Mr.
Justice Phillips.
No excuse for failing to provide a speciment for a laboratory
test under section (33) of the Road Safety Act, 1967, can be
adjudged reasonable unless the person from whom it is re-
quired is physically or mentally unable to provide it or its
provision would entail a substantial risk to his health.
Regina v. Lennard; Court of Appeal; 8/3/1973.
Words and Phrases
"Building", see under Planning.
147