219 / 294
Local Authority
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justicc
Phillimore and Lord Justice Cairns.
The practice of granting street traders' licences for pitches
in London street markets on the basis of "first come, first
served", followed by London borough councils since 1960, was
overruld by the Court of Appeal in a case from Petticoat
Lane. Their Lordships decided that there was no statutory
basis for the practice, laid down in a case decided in 1960:
that it could work injustice, particularly in the case of a
"family" pitch; and that in future when councils met to con-
sider a number of applications received on the same date, they
should consider them on their merits.
Perilly v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council; Court
of Appeal; 21/6/1972.
Motor Licence
Before Mr. Justice Bridge. Judgment delivered July 10th.
A boy who obtained more than a month before his sixteenth
birthday a provisional licence to ride a motor cycle but who
had not reached sixteen when the min'mum age was raised
from sixteen to seventeen was held not to "hold" a provisional
licence.
Kinsey v Hartfordshire County Council; O.B. Division;
11/7/1972.
Negligence
Before Lord Justice Davies, Lord Justice Buckley and Lord
Justice Stephenson. Judgments delivered July 7th.
Breach of the Highway Code must not be elevated into a
breach of statutory duty giving a right of action to anyone
who could prove that his injury resulted from it, Lord Justice
Stephenson said.
Powell v Phillips; Court of Appeal; 11/7/1972.
Planning
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Willis and Mr. Justice Bridge. Judgments delivered June 22nd.
Criteria for determining a planning unit that has to be
considered when deciding whether there has been a material
change in use of land were outlined by the Divisional Court.
Bundle and Another v Secretary of the Environment; Q.B.
Division; 30/6/72.
Practice
An important point of practice was decided by the Court of
Appeal when it allowed an appeal by the second defendant,
Mr. F. W. Hadley, of Rugeley, Staffordshire, against an order
ofrMr. Justice Talbot on May 16th in a personal injuries case
ordering that all further proceedings be stayed until the plain-
tiff, Mrs. S. Clarke, of Armitage, Staffordshire, granted him
facilities for medical examination.
The Master of the Rolls, with whose judgment Lord Justice
Cairns agreed, said that the plaintiff was willing to have a
medical examination provided she had the opportunity of
seeing the medical report that was obtained. The defendants'
insurers said that that was contrary to the practice they had
always adopted and that the proviso was unreasonable.
Cases of medical examination
were on a footing on their
own. If the defendant had the privilege of having the plaintiff
medically examined it was only right that the plaintiff should
have a sight of the report so that it could be agreed.
His Lordship knew that the practice that would no doubt
be adopted after this case meant virtually that medical reports
would be obtained on both sides and exchanged with a view
to agreement. That was wholly desirable. If a defendant
wanted to have the plaintiff medically examined that was a
privilege, and if he sought to have the action stayed he'should
make the report available. If the present plaintiff got further
medical reports herself she should reciprocate and show these
reports to the defendant.
Clarke v Martlew ap^L Another; 23/6/1972.
Restrictive Practices
Before Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Pearson,
Lord Kilbrandon and Lord Salmon.
The Restrictive Practices Court has been directed by the
House of Lords to modify its order of 23rd May 1969 to accord
with the majority opinions of Lord Reid, Lord Kilbrandon
and Lord Salmon in relation to restrictive practices by news-
agents.
The order, following a recommendation by the National
Federation of Retail Newsagents, Booksellers and Stationers to
members in March 1968 to boycott the
Daily Mirror for
a
week unless the publishers agreed nor to reduce the discount
percentage to wholesalers, restrained the Federation from
making any specific recommendation as to the action to be
taken by its members "in relation to the same class of goods
and in respect of the same matters", meaning thereby copies
of the
Mirror.
The majority opinion was that on the proper
construction of Section 6 (7) of the Restrictive Trade Practices
Act, 1956, the "class of goods" extended or could extent to the
ten national dailies.
National Federation of Retail Newsagents v Registrar of
Restrictive Trading Agreements; House of Lords; 5/7/1972.
State Privileges
Before Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Pearson
Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Salmon.
The public interest requires that all information received
by the Gaming Board for Great Britain about an applicant
for its consent to apply for a licence under the Gaming Act,
1968, shall be immune from disclosure, the House of Lords
held. It is not a question of Crown privilege or privilege.
Rogan v Secretary of State for the Home Department;
Gaming Board for Great Britain v Rogers; House of Lords;
28/6/1972.
Title to Goods
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Fhillimore and Lord Justice Cairns.
A garage proprietor who bought a damaged Jaguar car for
£75 from a rogue whom he honestly believed to be the owner
and did £226 worth of work on it was entitled on equitable
principles to recover that sum from the original owner when,
in proceedings to decide to whom the car belonged, the orig-
inal owner was awarded delivery of it.
Greenwood v Bennett and Others; Court of Appeal;
26/6/1972.
Trade Description
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Melford Stevenson and Mr. Justice Milmo.
A dealer who supplied a vehicle advertised as a "beautiful
car" was guilty of an offence under the Trade Descriptions
Act, 1968, because the car was unroadworthy and unfit for use.
British Car Auctions Ltd. v Wright; Q.B. Division; 12/7/72.
Tax
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Buckley and Lord-Justice Orr. Judgments delivered July 14th.
The Court held that annual payments made by management
consultants, P-E Consulting Group Ltd., to establish a fund to
acquire shares for the benefit of their employees were of a
revenue and not a capital nature, and that they were wholly
and exclusively expended for the purposes of their trade and
accordingly deductible from profits for the purpose of ascer-
taining the amount of tax payable.
But what was revenue and what was capital expenditure was
a quest'on of law for the Courts to decide, and although
evidence by accountants of the principles of commercial accoun-
tancy had always been of assistance, it could never be said that
such evidence was binding or conclusive.
Heather (Inspector of Taxes) v P-E Consulting Group Ltd.;
Court of Appeal; 18/7/1972.
The House of Lords by a majority (the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Reid/ Lord S'mon of Glaisdale and Lord Salmon, Lord
Morris of Borth-y-Gest dissenting) allowed an appeal by the
taxpayer, Mr. B. J. Banning, from a decision of the Court of
Appeal ((1970) TC Leaflet 2382) that he was not entitled to
deduct from rents received by him, pursuant to Section 175 of
the Income Tax Act, 1952, and/or paragraphs 8 and 9 of
Schedule 4 to the Finance Act, 1963, £1,750 as being a
"premium" paid by him within the meaning of Section 22 (4)
of the 1963 Act.
The £1,750 was part of a sum paid by the taxpayer to his
landlords in consideration of their abandoning their claim to
terminate his lease at the end of its original term of seven
years without the option of renewal by reason of his breaches
of covenant in,
inter alia,
subletting the premises without
consent, and of their consenting to the sublettings.
Section 22 (4) (see now Section 80 (4) of the Income and
Corporation Taxes Act, 1970), provides: "Where, as consid-
eration for the variation or waiver of any of the terms of a
lease, a sum becomes payable by the tenant otherw'se than
by way of rent, the lease shall be deemed for the purposes of
this section to have required the payment of a premium to the
landlord . . . of the amount of that sum . . . "
Banning v Wright (Inspector of Taxes); 21/6/1972.
- 2 2 3