51 / 294
CURRENT LAW DIGEST SELECTED
In reading these cases note should be taken of the
differences between English and Irish statute law.
Evidence
See under
Crime;
January
Gazette,
p. 7; Regina v Hilton;
C. of A.; 22/7/1971.
See under
Crime,
January
Gazette,
p. 7; Regina v Prager;
C. of A.; 11/11/1/971.
See under
Crime;
January
Gazette,
p. 7; Regina v Oyesiku;
C. of A.; 14/12/1971.
Family
Though the court will not have regard to the conduct of the
parties in determining the property rights of husband and wife
in proceedings under Section 17 of the Married Women's
Property Act, 1882, it may take conduct into account in
deciding, where a house is jointly owned and one party con-
tinues to pay all the mortgage instalments after the parties
separate, whether the other party shall be given credit for one-
half the instalments on the ground that the person remaining
in occupation has had the use and benefit of the house.
[Cracknell v Cracknell; C. of A.; 22/7/1971.]
See under
Succession;
in re Cummins (deceased); C. of A.;
13/7/1971; see March
Gazette.
When a court makes a maintenance order in favour of a wife
after considering the conduct of the parties under Section 5
of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act, 1970, the
court should assess a maximum discount figure, a percentage
by which, having regard to the conduct of the parties and the
duration of the marriage, it would be just to reduce the wife's
maintenance if, but only if, no other variable matters had to
be considered.
[A v A; Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Div.; 12/7/1971.]
A judge in a custody case is entitled to take into account his
suspicions about a mother's behaviour, even though there is no
admissible evidence to support them, and is entitled to ques-
tion a child in private about such behaviour if it is necessary
to determine what is best for the child's welfare.
[S v S; G. of A.; 14/7/1971.]
A young wife should not expect her husDt».:d to maintain her
for life, his Lordship said when granting a decree nisi to Lance
Sergeant Albert Mathias, The Scots Guards, of Wellington
Barracks, London, under Section 2 (1) of the Divorce Reform
Act, 1969, on the ground that the marriage had irretriev-
ably broken down following five years' living apart.
[Mathias v Mathias; 24/11/1971.]
When a former wife applies under Section 26 of the Matri-
monial Causes Act, 1965, for reasonable provision out of her
deceased husband's estate, the value of the deceased's net estate
should be taken at the date of the hearing and not at the date
of his death for deciding questions of quantum. Their Lord-
ships also said that there is no prima facie rule of law that any
order under Section 26 should be backdated to the date of the
deceased's death.
[Lusterick v Lusterick; C. of A.; 11/11/1971.]
Section 2 (5) of the Divorce Reform Act, 1969, which pro-
vides that a husband and wife are living apart "unless they are
living with each other in the same household" was declaratory
of the existing law, his Lordship held. The law had not been
altered in any way by new legislation.
[Mouncer v Mouncer; Family Div.; 2/11/1971.]
A magistrates' court has jurisdiction to grant an application
for a provisional maintenance order by a wife who is ordin-
arily resident within its jurisdiction although the husband has
never been within the jurisdiction and lives in one of the
territories covered by the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for
Enforcement) Act, 1920.
[Collister v Collister; Family Div.; 18/10/1971.]
The parties to an adoption application in the county court have
no absolute right to see the guardian ad litem's confidential
report to the court. It is in the discretion of the judge what he
should put before them. Rule 9 (2) of the Adoption (County
Court) Rules, 1969, which provides for the confidential report
to be made, is not ultra vires Section 9 (3) of the Adoption
Act 1958
[In re P. A. (an infant); C. of A.; 24/6/1971.]
Gaming and Lotteries
A person who used premises for collecting correspondence con-
nected with a chain-letter scheme known as World Wide
Roulette was guilty of conducting an unlawful lottery, con-
trary to Section 42 (1) (f) of the Betting, Gaming and
Lotteries Act, 1963. Their Lordships dismissed an appeal by
George Atkinson against his conviction by the City of London
justices at Guildhall on three counts of using premises for the
conduct of an unlawful lottery.
Section 42 provides: "(1) . . . every person who in connec-
tion with any lottery . . . (f) uses any premises . . . for purposes
connected with the promotion or conduct of the lottery . . .
shall be guilty of an offence."
[Atkinson v Murrell; C. of A.; 22/12/1971.]
See under
De Minimis;
January
Gazette,
p. 8; Regina v
Decorum Gaming Licensing Committee; Q.B.D.; 20/7/1971.
Insurance
The word "storm" in a policy insuring against risk of damage
or destruction by "storm, tempest or flood" must be something
more prolonged and widespread than a gust of wind, Mr.
Justice Thesiger said when giving judgment with costs for
insurers in an action for a declaration that they were liable
to the assured.
[S&M Hotels Ltd. v Legal and General Assurance Society
Ltd.; Q.B.D.; 18/11/1971.]
Interpretation of Statute
When a word or phrase was undefined in a statute, the judges
had to work out its meaning doing the best they could to inter-
pret the will of the legislature in regard to it. A tenant's
claim to acquire the freehold or an extended lease under the
Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, was made in good faith when it
was made honestly and with no ulterior motive. Where a tenant
desired to buy the freehold in order to avoid the forfeiture of
his lease after a conviction for keeping a brothel his claim was
not made in good faith.
[Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd. v Woolger; C. of A.;
28/7/1971.]
Landlord and Tenant
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court (the Lord Chief Justice,
Mr. Justice O'Connor and Mr. Justice Lawson) refused an
application by Frey Investments Ltd. for leave to apply for an
order of prohibition prohibiting the Barnet and Camden Rent
Tribunal from proceeding with the hearing and determination
of references in respect of twenty-two tenancies owned by them
by the London Borough of Camden in the exercise of powers
conferred by Section. 72 of the Rent Act, 1968, on the ground,
inter alia, that the borough had not received from any of the
tenants any indication that they desired to refer their tenancies
to the tribunal.
[Regina v Barnet and Camden Town Tribunal; C. of A.;
29/7/1971.]
A contractual tenant of premises within the ratable value
limits laid down by the Rent Act, 1965, is entitled to apply
to the rent officer to fix a fair rent for the premises and have
the tenancy registered at that rent, even though he does not
personally occupy the premises as his home.
[Feather Suppliers Ltd. v Ingham; C. of A. 10/6/1971.]
Their Lordships, in reserved judgments, dismissed an appeal
by the tenant, Mr. G. Husan, from the decision of Judge
Edward Jones at Liverpool County Court last January that the
landlords, Liverpool Corporation, were at liberty to commence
forfeiture proceedings for breach of repairing covenants in a
lease dated 6th August 1898, of 33 Falkner Square, Liverpool.
[Liverpool Corporation v Husan; C. of A.; 28/7/1971.J
A lease, which conveys an interest in land, is a demise and
48