11 / 294
Where a police officer in purported exercise of functions under
Sections 186 (1) and 186 (2) of the Licensing Act, 1964,
sought to enter licensed premises for the purpose of preventing
or detecting the commission of an offence against the Act,
other than an offence under Section 155 or Section 157, it was
held that he must have had reasonable grounds for suspecting
that an offence was being or had been committed.
[Valentine v Jackson; Q.B.D.; 11/11/1971.]
Customs and Excise
When the Commissioners of Customs and Excise take condem-
nation proceedings over forfeiture of imported goods pursuant
to Section 275 of, and Schedule 7 to, the Customs and Excise
Act, 1952, the questions to be determined are whether the
goods have been imported and whether their import is prohi-
bited. The identity of the importer is irrelevant. Naming a
person as the importer in the commissioners' complaint is a
piece of unnecessary information and does not prevent the
condemnation order from being made even though the person
named is found not to be the importer.
[Darton v John Lister Ltd. and Another; Q.B.D.; 28/6171.]
Damages
A dentist who ordered a new Rover 2000 to replace one which
became a total loss in an accident, instead of buying a second-
hand car, was held to have acted reasonably. He was entitled
to the cost of hiring alternative transport for the time it took
to obtain the new car, even though he could have acquired a
secondhand car much sooner.
[Moore v DER Ltd.; C. of A.; 18/6/1971.]
It is desirable that the Court of Appeal when hearing an
appeal against an award of damages should be in the same
position as the trial judge and should not know the amount
which defendants to the action paid into court before the trial.
[Thornton v Swan Hunter (Shipbuilders) Ltd.; C. of A.;
25/10/1971.]
Although Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1971, affords relief
from taxation on the interest element in an award of damages
for personal injuries or death under Section 3 of the Law
Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, the 1971 Act
has not affected the rate of interest which is to be awarded in
accordance with the
Jefford v Gee
principles ([1970] 2 Q.B.
130).
[Mason v Another and Herman; Q.B.D.; 22/12/1971.]
A boy aged five who was so badly injured in a car accident that
he will have to spend the rest of his life supported by the State
in a National Health institution was held to be entitled to
damages for loss of future earnings without deduction
oi
a
sum for housing and maintenance expenses which an injured
person would otherwise incur.
[Daish v Welton; C. of A.; 15/10/1971.]
Defamation
A defamatory article in a popular daily newspaper may be
capable of being held to refer to a person who is neither named
nor described in it if it is proved that ordinary sensible people
scanning their newspaper without great attention to detail, in
the way ordinary people generally do, conclude, because of
special facts known to them, that it refers to the unidentified
person. It is not necessary that there should be any peg or
pointer in the article itself on which to hang the alleged
identification of the plaintiff as the person referred to.
[Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd. and Another; House of
Lords; 29/6/1971.]
Alegations in British national newspapers of reports that the
Maltese Labour Party had received secret payments of £125,000
for their "election expenses" in the forthcoming general elec-
tion from the Libyan Government were held by the court not
to be plainly defamatory though capable of being held by a
jury to be defamatory, and accordingly in the interest of free-
dom of the press and of political controversy should not be the
subject of an interim injunction against repetition.
[Mintoff v Daily Telegraph Ltd.; C. of A.; 11/6/1971.]
The Queen's Bench Division in England laid down the prin-
ciples applicable there on an appeal by the plaintiff from an
order of a Master that the action be tried with a jury. It was
stated that the action promised to be one of the most compli-
cated libel actions yet fought and that the time for trial would
be calculated in weeks not days. If the action were one of the
great bulk of cases in the Queen's Bench Division there would
nowadays be no likelihood of a judge granting trial by jury.
But libel was a type of case in a special category in respect of
which an order for jury trial was to be ordered under Section
6 (1) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Pro-
visions) Act, 1933, "unless the judge is of opinion that the
trial requires any prolonged examination of documents or
accounts which cannot conveniently be made with a jury but
save as aforesaid any action to be tried in that division may
in the discretion of the judge be ordered to be tried with or
without a jury". The Queen's Bench Division allowed an inter-
locutory appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the Master
that the action be tried with a jury. Counsel for the defendants
urged as one of the grounds for contending for trial by jury
that a jury did not have to give its reasons. The court thought
that in a complicated case the obligation to give the reasons
tended to concentrate the mind admirably. The court was
satisfied that if a jury were to try the case with all its many
complicated issues they would be innundated by a sea of docu-
ments and that accordingly it was in the interests of the
administration of justice that trial be by judge alone.
[Rothermere and Others v Times Newspapers Ltd. and
Others; Q.B.D.; 21/12/1971.]
De Minimis
A slip of the tongue by a chairman of justices when announcing
a sentence did not render the justices functi officio so as to
prevent the slip being corrected immediately afterwards, and
the corrected sentence was held to be valid by the Divisional
Court.
[Regina v Newcastle-upon-Tyne Justices ex parte Seveles;
Q.B.D.; 8/12/1971.]
Prima facie any departure from a strictly enforced code in the
Gaming Act, 1968, relating to general provisions for "appli-
cation for grant of licence" renders a step in the procedure in
which an error is made ineffective, but there must be reason in
all things, and a trivial typographical error does not invalidate
a notice published in a newspaper.
The Divisional Court so decided when granting an appli-
cation by E.M.I. Cinemas and Leisure Ltd. for an order of
mandamus requiring the gaming Licensing Committee of
Dacorum, Hertfordshire, to hear and determine according to
law an application for the grant of a licence to E.M.I, in
respect of the A.B.C. Social Club at the Rex Cinema in
Berkhamsted to enable bingo to be played there.
[Regina v Decorum Gaming Licensing Committee; Q.B.D.;
20/7/1971.]
Avis executive credit cards
Members recently received with the approval of the
Society executive credit cards from Avis Rent a Car
(Ireland) Ltd. These credit cards entitle holders to car
renting facilities in Ireland and elsewhere. As is the case
with all credit card clubs holders of cards are liable for
payments incurred by persons using thee ards. Any
member who does not wish to retain the card is, of
course, entitled to return it to the company. Similarly
any Avis credit card holder who mislays his credit card
or whose card is stolen should notify the company
immediately so that the card may be cancelled. Once
Avis have been notified of a lost card no liability rests
with the holder.
8