189 / 262
ENGLISH CURRENT LAW DIGEST
In reading these cases note should be taken of
the differences in English and Irish Statute
Law.
Companies
Banking
The defendants, all three directors of L. & R. Agencies Ltd.,
who purported to sign, on behalf of the company, a cheque
which had omitted the connecting ampersand in its name,
were held not to have complied with section 108(1) (c) of
the Companies Act, 1948, which requires that "every com-
pany shall have its name mentioned in legible characters . . .
in all cheques . . . purporting to be signed by or on behalf of
the company", and therefore were personally liable under
section 108(4)(b) to the plaintiff holder of the cheque for the
amount shown on it.
Mr. Justice MacKenna, in the Queen's Bench Division, said
that it would not be consistent with earlier authorities if he
were to hold that a description was sufficient which totally
omitted the connecting ampersand. " L. R. Agencies" was not
the same thing in sense as " L. & R. Agencies". The omission
of a word seemed a worse defect than its transposition or
abbreviation.
Hendon v. Aldeman and Others; Queen's Bench Division;
16/6/1973.
Compensation
Negligence
Before Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Megaw and Lord Justice Scarman.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, who administer
the scheme for ex-gratia payments to victims of crimes of
violence, were held to have erred in law in rejecting a claim
to compensation by the widow of a police constable killed on
duty by deciding that his death was not directly attributable
to the attempted prevention of an offence but to his foolhardy
driving. The constable was killed in a collision with another
police car when he crossed on red traffic lights on his way to
a Territorial Army headquarters in response to an emergency
radio call that it was suspected that a break-in was about to
be made. No break-in in fact took place.
The court allowed an appeal by Mrs. Lynda luce, widow
of Constable Michael Ince, aged 25, of Stevenage, Hertford-
shire, from the decision of the Queen's Bench Divisional Court
on November 17 and granted her an order of certiorari to
quash the board's decision. The case was remitted to the board
for reconsideration.
Regina v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; Ex parte
Ince; Court of Appeal; 21/7/1973.
Contempt of Court
Before Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Dip-
lock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Cross of Chelsea.
The publication of a proposed article in
The Sunday
Times
consisting of detailed evidence and argument intended to
show that Distillers Company (Biochemicals) Ltd., the manu-
facturers and distributors in this country of a product contain-
ing thalidomide, did not exercise due care to see that it was
safe before they put it on the market would be a contempt of
court so long as any outstanding claims in pending proceedings
against them have not been tried or compromised in a
negotiated settlement.
The terms of the injunction originally granted by the
Queen's Bench Divisional Court on November 17, 1972,
restraining publication will be settled by the House of Lords
on July 25.
Their Lordships allowed an appeal by the Attorney General
from the Court of Appeal (the Master of the Rolls, Lord
Justice Phillimore and Lord Justice Scarman)
(
T he
Times,
February 17) [1973] 2 WLR 452), which had allowed an
appeal by Times Newspapers Ltd., publishers of
The
Sunday
Times,
and discharged the original injunction.
Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd.; House of
Lords; 19 July 1973.
Contract
Before Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Cairns and Lord Justice Roskill. Judgments delivered July 4.
A claim for freight is an exception to the general rule that
when there is a claim for services rendered and a cross-claim
for damages for alleged breach of contract in the performances
of the services the cross-claim can be relied on as a true
defence (other than by way of set-off) which cannot be de-
feated by the plaintiff's reliance on any period of limitation.
When the claim is for freight, a cross-claim for damages said
to have been caused to the goods by the fault of the ship-
owners can only be raised by way of set-off or counterclaim
and is subject to the limitation provision in Article III, rule
6 of the Hague Rules when incorporated in the contract of
carriage.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Polish char-
terers, P. H. Z. Rolimpex, from Mr. Justice Mocatta, who
affirmed the award of the umpire, Mr. K. S. Rokison, that
the claim of the Norwegian shipowners, Henriksens Rederi
A / S, to the unpaid balance of freight, found to be £2,476,
succeeded and that the charterers' claim for cargo short
delivered and damaged was barred by the time limit of one
year in the Hague Rules.
Leave to appeal was refused.
Article III, rule 6, says: " . . . the carrier and the ship shall
be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage
unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the
goods. . . . "
Henriksens Rederi A / S v. T. H. Z. Rolimpex; Court of
Appeal; 10/7/1973.
Copyright
Before Lord Justice Russell, Lord Justice Stamp and Lord
Justice James, judgment delivered July 4.
Suites of chairs and sofas manufactured by the plaintiffs
were perfectly ordinary pieces of furniture bought or treated
rather for their functional utility than for any appeal to
aesthetic taste and the prototypes were not "works ot artistic
craftmanship" within section 3(l)(c) of the Copyright Act,
1956, capable of beinp the subject matter of copyright.
The court so held in allowing an appeal by the defendants,
Restawile Upholstery (Lanes.) Ltd., of Radcliffe, manufac-
turers of a suite
of
chairs and
sofas known as the Amazon,
from the decision of Mr. Justice Graham
(
The
Times,
Novem-
ber 2, 1972; [1973] 1 WLR 144) giving judgment for the
plaintiffs, George Hensher Ltd., on their claim for the in-
fringement of their copyright in a suite of chairs and a sofa
known as the Bronx and certain variants manufactured by
them.
George Hensher Ltd. v. Restawile Upholstery (Lanes.) Ltd.;
Court of Appeal; 6/7/1973.
Criminal Law
Before Lord Widgery, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice
Lawton and Mr. Justice Milmo.
Justices who disqualified a motorist for one month instead
of the mandatory 12 months because he had "done the decent
thing" in reporting to the police an accident in which only
his own car was involved, were clearly wrong, the Lord Chief
Justice said when giving judgment on an appeal by the police
prosecutor.
Their Lordships allowed an appeal from justices at Wigton,
Cumberland, who, on convicting Joseph Armstrong, a lorry
driver, of Wigton, on a charge of driving with excess blood-
alcohol contrary to section 6 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962,
fined him £ 25 and disqualified him for one month.
Kerr v. Armstrong; Queen's Bench Division; 22/6/1973.
Before Lord Justice Roskill, Mr. Justice Thompson and Mr.
Justice Stocker. Judgment delivered June 29.
A person who fails to say, after arrest and caution by the
police, that he has an alibi should not be criticized for his
silence, the Court of Appeal held in a judgment in an appeal
by Leslie Stewart Lewis, of Bristol, against his conviction at
Bristol Crown Court (recorder: Mr. Richard Yorke, QC) of
theft and going equipped for theft.
Regina v. Lewis; Court of Appeal; 3/7/1973.
Convictions of the Federal Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.,
owners of the motor vessel Huntingdon, and her master, Derek
Ernest Moran, for discharging a mixture containing fuel oil
contrary to section 1(1) of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act,
1955, as amended in 1963, were upheld by the Court of
Appeal. Their Lordships rejected a submission that there could
only be a conviction of either owners or master but not of
186