198 / 294
building safe may necessitate vacating it completely for several
months.
[Heath v Down; House of Lords; (1972) 2 A.E.R. 561]
Negligencc
In the present state of our law the owner of a car is not
vicariously liable for the negligence of another person who
drives it unless the driver is using it for the owner's purposes
under delegation of a task or duty. And even the House of
Lords in its judicial capacity cannot changc the traditional
concept of vicarious liability, inadequate though it may be in
the modern world of millions of motor cars, by introducing the
concept of making the owner of a "matrimonial" or "family"
car liable for negligent driving by the other spouse or any
member of the family using the car. Any such innovation must
fie made hy Parliament.
?Morgans v Launchbury; House of Lords; (1972) 2 A.E.R.
605]
Contractors whose workmen lit a bonfire to hum up the rubbish
on a demolition site next to a public park but failed to keep a
look-out for children coming on to the site to see the fire were
held to be in breach of their duty to a trespassing five-year-old
boy who came to see the fire and was severely burned. The
Court held that the fact that the same boy had been repeatedly
warned off the site was not sufficient fulfilment of the occu-
pier's dutv to the trespassing child.
[Pannett v P. McGuinness and Co. Ltd.; C.A.; 17/4/72.]
Procedure
The departmental committee now considering the practice and
procedure in adoption proceedings and the County Court Rules
Committee should give urgent attention to the divergences
between the High Court and County Court Rules. Meanwhile,
where psacticgble, County Courts should follow High Court
practice in such matters
[In re M. (an infant)'; C.A.; 2/5/1972.]
A writ served on a partner in a firm of chartered accountants
arising from a dispute following the dissolution of the partner-
ship in 1957 was struck out on the ground that the delay on
the part of the plaintiff, one of the other two partners, was
inordinate and inexcusable.
[Beatton v Neil and Another; Ch. Div.; 19/4/1972.]
The Court has power under the Rules of the Supreme Court
to allow a pleading in a representative action to be amended
by substituting for the named plaintiff the name of one of the
other persons represented; for each person represented in such
an action is a "party" and should be allowed to pursue the
claim if the named plaintiff discontinues or drops out.
[Moon (on behalf of herself and others) v Artherton; C.A.;
18/4/1972.]
Redundancy
Where in August 1965 employers manufacturing large diesel
engines sold a factory to new employers who took over almost
all the labour force, completed the work on four or five engines
and then carried on other engineering work in the factory,
there was no transfer of the "trade or business" within the
meaning of the Contracts of Employment Act, 19 3, and the
Redundancy Payments Aci, 1965. Accordingly two employees
who had worked in the factory for over twenty years couid
claim, on their dismissal for redundancy in 1971. only six
years' service for the purposes of redundancy payments.
The Court so held in allowing the first appeal from the
decision of the National Industrial Relations Court (Sir John
Dontldson, President, Mr. J. H. Arkell and Mr. H. Briggsl
([1972] WLR 401), which allowed the appeal of Mr. A.
Woodhouse, Nottingham, and another employee, from the deci-
sion of an industrial tribunal sitting at Nottingham that they
could claim only six years' service for the purpose of their
redundancy payments from the new employers, Peter Brother-
hood Ltd., engineers, of Peterborough.
[Woodhouse and Another v Peter Brotherhood Ltd.; C.A.;
8/5/1972.]
An electric arc welder exposed to welding fumes containing
oxides of nitrogen and oxides of iron failed in a claim against
his employers that the lung illness from which he suffered wa«
caused by their negligence or breach of statutory duty.
[Cartwright v GKN Sankey Ltd.; Q.B.D.; 8/5/1972.]
Sovereign Immunity
The Banco Provincial de Salta failed in an application to set
aside a writ served on them by the Swiss-Israel Trade Bank
over
bills
of
exchange
for £279,365
said
to
have been
dis-
honoured on presentation. A similar application by another
defendant to the action, named as the Government of Salta.
was granted on the grounds that it was either the Government
of the Argentine Republic or at least a department of that
Government and entitled to immunity,
[Swiss-Israel Trade Bank v Government of Salta and
Another; Q.B.D.; 13/4-/1972.]
Tax
The trade of newspaper publishers and printers is the provi-
sion of newspapers and news and not of hospitality. Accord-
ingly expenses incurred in providing meals, drink and enter-
tainment to people likely to be able to provide news or other
items for publication in their papers are not deductible for
income tax purposes under Section 15 (9) of the Finance Act,
1965, as "expenses incurred in . . . the provision . . . of any-
thing" which it is their trade to provide. Their Lordships so
held in dismissing an appeal by Associated Newspapers Group
Ltd.
[Associated Newspapers Group Ltd. v Fleming (Inspector
of Taxes); House of Lords; (1972) 2 A.E.R. 574]
Estate Duty
Assessments
A deputation from the Council was received by the Assistant
Secretary of Revenue and officials of the Estate Duty Office
to consider difficulties which arise from the delay in making
assessments of death duties leading to grants of representation.
The Society had obtained the opinion of Counsel who took the
view that the Revenue Commissioners were bound to bring in
an assessment without delay on presentation of a sworn Inland
Revenue Affidavit containing a realistic valuation of the
assets. This is particularly important in the case of valuations
of shares of private limited companies. The Revenue officials
were not prepared to concede that the position was as stated
by the Society's Counsel. They laid particular stress on the
chaotic situation which they state would arise in the Estate
Duty Office if provisional assessments were made on estimated
values. They stated that in some cases undertakings to bring
in corrective affidavits have not been carried out and that this
is becoming an increasing problem for the Revenue. They also
pointed out that in a number of case* where Government
stocks are offered in payment of death duties the executors
are required to transfer the stocks immediately on the issue
of the grant of probate or representation and that in some
cases these undertakings have not be-n implemented.
After a lengthy discussion in which all aspects of the matter
were explored it was arranged that a form of undertaking
might be submitted by the Society whereby solicitors with the
authority of their clients would agree to furnish to the
Revenue all information, accounts and documents which the
Revenue might require to assess final value of shares in
private limited companies and that on the signing of this
undertaking the Revenue might then issue immediate assess-
ments provided that the shares concerned were returned at
what on first sight appeared to be a reasonable valuation. If
a suitable undertaking could be agreed upon, the .Assistant
Secretary of the Estate Duty Branch stated that the matter
would be brought before the Board of the Revenue Com-
missioners for a decision.
It was pointed out that assuming that arrangement can be
made it would be applied for a trial period and would be
continued only if experience shows that undertakings are
promptly honoured- by solicitors.
The matter is still under discussion with the Revenue. It is
realised that only a minority fail to honour undertakings hut
the injury to the profession and their clients is disproportionate
to the number of cases involved. A further statement on the
matter will be published in the Gaxettc in due course.
199