62 / 262
ENGLISH CURRENT LAW DIGEST
In reading these cases note should be taken of the differences in English and Irish statute law.
All dates relate to dates reported in
The Times
newspaper.
Aliens
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Cusack and Mr. Justice Croom-Johnson.
A Commonwealth immigrant who entered the United
Kingdom illegally in 1970 but who had gained an immunity
from either deportation under the immigration Acts or prose-
cution because of the passage of time since his entry, was held
nevertheless to have become liable to a deportation order under
the provisions of the Immigration Act, 1971, which came into
force on 1 January 1973.
Regins v. Governor of Pentonville Prison and Another; ex
parte Azam; Queen's Bench;
The Times,
23/2/1973.
Arbitration
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Buckley and Sir Seymour Karminski.
The authorities establish in a manner binding on the Court
of Appeal that, where a third party undertakes the role of
deciding as between two other parties a question, the determ-
ination of which requires the third party to hold the scales
fairly between the opposing interests of the two parties, the
third party is immune from an action for negligence in respect
of anything done in that role.
Arenson v. Arenson and Another;
The Times,
22/2/1973.
Certiorari
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court cannot bring up and
quash the decision of a Crown Court judge relating to costs
following a trial on indictment.
The Lord Chief Justice, sitting with Mr. Justice Park and
Mr. Justice May, refused an ex parte application by Mr. Eric
Melvin Meredith, a technical college lecturer of Manchester,
for an order of certiorari to quash a refusal to award him
costs after Judge Da Cunha had directed a Manchester Crown
Court jury to acquit him, without calling on the defence on
charges of stealing his own car and a Krooklock from a police
pound. No evidence had been offered on a charge of taking
the car without the owner's consent.
Ex parte Meredith;
The Times,
17/2/1973.
Damages
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Phillimore and Lord Justice Scarman.
There is an important distinction between the award of
damages for loss of earnings and compensation for loss of
future earning capacity, given by way of general damages.
Court of Appeal;
The Times,
10/2//1973.
Evidence
Before Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone, the Lord Chan-
cellor, Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Simon
of Glaisdale and Lord Cross of Chelsea.
There is no rule of law that the sworn evidence of a child
which requires corroboration cannot be used as corroboration
of the sworn evidence of another child which requires corrob-
oration.
Director of Public Prosecutions v /íilbourne; House of Lords;
The Times,
5/2/1973.
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Stamp and Lord Justice James. Judgments delivered Feb. 20th.
The court, Lord Justice Stamp dissenting, dismissed an
appeal by the Board of Governors of the United Liverpool
Hospitals from the order of Mr. Justice Cutfield, under
Section 31 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1970, directing
them to produce the medical records and case notes relating to
the treatment of Mrs. F. M. Dunning, of Liverpool, at the
Liverpool Royal Infirmary between April and September 1963,
to her medical adviser, Dr. John Evans, of Manchester, or to
such other medical adviser as he might advise.
Section 31, which came into operation on 31 August 1971
provides: "On the application . . . of a person who appears to
the High Court to be likely to be a party to subsequent pro-
ceedings in that court in which a claim in respect of personal
injuries to a person or in respect of a person's death is likely
to be made, the High Court shall . . . have power to order a
person who appears to the court to be likely to be a party to
the proceedings and to be likely to have or to have had in his
possession, custody or power any documents which are relevant
to an issue arising or likely to arise out of that claim (a) to
disclose whether those documents are in his possession . . .;
and (b) to produce to the applicant such of those documents
as are in his possession. . . ."
Court of Appeal;
The Times,
21/2/1973.
Family
Before Mr. Justice Hollings.
A separation deed made between a husband and wife and a
third party was held not to be a maintentnce agreement within
Section 14 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act,
1970.
Family Division;
The Times,
20/2/1973.
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Phillimore and Lord Justice Roskill.
The court stated the principles to be applied when granting
ancillary relief under the Matrimonial Proceedings and Prop-
erty Act, 1970, following dissolution of marriage.
Since Parliament had decreed that a divorce was a mis-
fortune that befell both parties, in the financial adjustments
consequent upon the dissolution of a marriage which had
irretrievably broken down the imposition of financial penalties
ought seldom to find a place. The 1970 Act was a reforming
statute designed to facilitate the granting of ancillary relief in
cases where marriages had been dissolved.
The Times,
9/2/1973.
Before Lord Justice Davies, Lord Justice Cairns and Lord
Justice Stamp.
Their Lordships, on an appeal by a husband, whose wife had
obtained a decree nisi, set aside an order transferring the
former matrimonial home, which had been held in their joint
names, wholly to the wife. Instead, they ordered that the
matrimonial home, a house in Ferndown, Dorset, is to be held
on trust for sale to hold the proceeds of sale and rents and
profits until sale in equal shares provided that as long as the
daughter is under seventeen or until further order the house is
not to be sold; and the wife, who is living in the house with
the daughter, now nearly nine, and a man she proposed to
marry, is to discharge all outgoings including mortgage interest,
any capital repayments to be discharged equally by husband
and wife.
The Times,
13/2/1973.
Before Mr. Justice Stirling.
It would be wrong to equate desertion and conduct under
Section 2 (1) (b) of the Divorce Reform Act, 1969 (unreason-
able behaviour). A wife's determination to sell the matri-
monial home and consequently to evict her husband was an act
of desertion on her part to be pleaded under Section 2 (1)
(c) of the 1969 Act and did not amount to conduct which
rendered continued cohabitation unreasonable under Section
2 (1) (b).
Morgan v. Morgan;
The Times,
23/2/1973.
Gaming and Wagering
Before Sir John Pennycuick, the Vice-Chancellor.
An agreement to share bingo winnings was held not to be a
contract by way of gaming or wagering and was therefore
enforceable. His Lordship gave judgment for Mrs. E. J . Peck,
Hounslow, on her claim against Mrs. W. Lateu, Hounslow,
for half a bonanza prize of £1,107, won by Mrs. Lateu, which
she had refused to hand over in spite of an agreement to do so.
Peck v Lateu;
The Times,
17/2/1973.
Before Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, the Lord Chan-
cellor, Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Simon of
Glaisdale and Lord Cross of Chelsea.
61