52 / 294
does not come to an end like an ordinary contract by repudi-
ation and acceptance. The better view is that a lease cannot
COr
íí£
t o a n e n
d by frustration.
u.LTolel Oil Great Britain Ltd. v Thompson Garages (Biggin
Hill) Ltd.; C. of A.; 8/10/1971.]
J he service of full meals at lunchtime and light refreshments
during the rest of the day was held to be within a covenant
f e t i n g the use of premises to "a high-class coffee bar and
29/1*1/197^.] ^
e v e
'
o p m e n t s
(Commercial) Ltd. v Fugaccih;
Se
e under
Interpretation of Statute;
Central Estates (Bel-
gravia)
Ltd. v Woolger.
Local Authority
U/12/1971 ^
e g l i g e n c e ; D u t t o n
v Regis U.D.C.; C. of A.;
Master and Servant
An injunction would be granted to restrain employers, who had
?een under pressure from a powerful trade union, from wrong-
uiiy purporting to terminate the employment of an employee
\ thirty-five years' standing, where damages would not be an
adequate remedy.
[Hall v C. A. Persons and Co. Ltd.; C. of A.; 10/11/1971.]
Motor Insurance
lift
ovvrner
a
oat"
w
ho had for eight years regularly given
eith
t o
J
e
llow workers to and from work, expecting to be paid
tner in cash or in kind, and whose passengers expected to
"«ke such payment, was operating an unofficial taxi service of
business character and should have been covered by a policy
ot insurance for passengers under the Road Traffic Act, 1960,
fn^u*
6
I
1
"
c a r w a s a
"
ve
hicle in which passengers are carried
the
°
r r e w a r d
"
w i t h i n t h e
proviso of Section 203 (4) of
[Albert v Motor Insurers Bureau; H. of L.; 9/7/1971.]
Natural Justice
t
.
h e
court decided thát the expulsion of Miss G. L. Ward from
.Margaret McMillan Memorial College of Education, Brad-
.
r
d, for having a man in her room was not contrary to natural
Justice. The question arose whether some disciplinary action
ught to be taken. The college had recently been given a
S ' t u t i o n in accordance with the Education (No. 2) Act,
KO
^ had an instrument of government and articles of
of
V
t
e
K
rnment
- ** had a disciplinary committee—three members
st H governing body, three members of the staff and three
""dents. It was specially entrusted with the consideration of
vf-
mis
«>nduct.
Miss
Ward submitted that only the principal could refer
Ses
to the disciplinary committee. But his Lordship saw no
L
ason
> under the rules, why the governing body should not
it
V
T
m a t
í
e a ru
^
e
by which they themselves could refer cases to
do
so
they had to be careful to see that justice was
be because they were also the deciding body. Unless they
th 't F
are
f
u
fi they might lay themselves open to the criticism
M they were acting as prosecutor and judge,
t o avoid that criticism it would be desirable that the refer-
conf
t-
°
disciplinary committee should be made by a sub-
Qf ^ ^ t t ee of the governing body, none of whom was a member
l j
0
j
h e
committee. That had not been done. But the governing
du l
been careful not to discuss the merits of any indivi-
tk i-
48
®
8
- His Lordship saw nothing unfair or unjust in what
th<
£ Had done.
Nor was there anything wrong in the fact that the amend-
bt which the governing body had made had operated retro-
|jcctively. Mi
ss
Ward said that Mr. Naismith's presence invali-
a
the disciplinary committee's decision, especially as he had
iycly participated in the discussions,
del til
6 g
?
n e r a
l
m
l
e
tHat no person ought to participate in the
tberations of a judicial or quasi-judicial body unless he was
Ca
"?
em
Her of it was subject to exceptions. The present case
gov ^"Hib the exceptions. According to the instrument of
wa
ernn
?
ent
> the director of education or his representative
it.
S ent
'tled to attend every meeting of the governing body or
18
committees.
gov
WS
also said that, on the wording of the articles of
t
c
e
^bbient, she should have been given a right of appeal from
t
L disciplinary committee. His Lordship could not accept
^ t submission. Nor did natural justice require the provision
f
a
«
a n
. appeal. So long as the party had a fair hearing by a
r w
l n d e d 1115111 o r
H°dy
m e n
tHat was enough.
®/'/l97*
V
Corporation and Others; Ch. D.;
Mr. John Strachan Malloch, an Aberdeen certificated teacher
who declined to register under the Teachers Council (Scot-
land) Act, 1965, and regulations made thereunder by the
Secretary of State for Scotland in 1967, won his appeal against
dismissal. The House of Lords by a majority (Lord Morris and
Lord Guest dissenting) reversed the decision of the Court of
Session (Lord Walker, Lord Hunter and Lord Kissen) last
July and held that as he was the holder of a public office forti-
fied by statute, his dismissal by Aberdeen Corporation, the
education authority, on the ground that he was an unregis-
tered teacher, without giving him the opportunity to be heard,
was a nullity.
[Malloch v Aberdeen Corporation; H. of L.; 29/6/1971.]
See under
Tribunal;
Maxwell v Stable and Others; Vacation
Court; 30/9/1971. See March
Gazette.
Negligence
A moped driver, who, when riding at 20 m.p.h. in a busy
traffic area, sustained head injuries when a car negligently
driven by the defendant collided with him, was held to be
guilty of contributory negligence in not wearing a crash helmet
which would have reduced his injuries.
[O'Connell v Jackson; C. of A.; 7/7/1971.]
A motorist in whose favour traffic lights at a road junction
have changed to green is still under a duty to look out for
traffic already lawfully on the junction which might still be
crossing and he must not enter the junction until it is clear of
such traffic. Therefore a motorist who entered a junction when
the lights changed while a cyclist was two-thirds of the way
across and whose car struck the cyclist was held to be wholly
to blame for the accident.
[Redbum v Kemp; G. of A.; 5/7/1971.]
A majority of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Salmon
dissenting, decided that a learner driver owes the same duty of
care of a person teaching her to drive as is owed by every
driver on the road, namely, to drive with reasonable care and
skill, and that that standard is not lowered by reason of the
fact that the instructor knows that the learner is not an
experienced driver. Where, therefore, a man undertook to give
a friend's wife driving lessons, after making sure that the car
insurance policy covered him, he was entitled to bring an
action for damages for negligence when he was injured by
the learner's lack of skill in manoeuvring the car.
[Nettleship v Weston; C. of A.; 30/6/1971.]
A plaintiff in a personal injuries case is to be asked to submit
to an examination by a named psychiatrist on behalf of the
defendant. If he fails to do so without reasonable cause all
further proceedings in the action will be stayed.
[Lane v Willis; C. of A.; 1/12/1971.]
The trial of an action for damages, brought on behalf of a man
in a coma who is not expected to live long, was postponed from
next month to next June in order to give his dependants the
chance of obtaining a much larger sum of damages after he is
dead than he could obtain if the action is tried while he is
still alive, because in the existing state of the common law
compensation for the "lost years" of life is not allowed.
[Murray v Shuter and Others; G. of A.; 7/10/1971.]
An engine driver injured by his employers' negligence in 1948,
who did not realise how serious his injuries were until about
1959 or that he had a worthwhile cause of action until January
1969 and who subsequently issued his writ within one year, was
held to be entitled by virtue of the Limitation Act, 1963, to
recover damages in respect of that negligence. He could not by
accepting compensation under the Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1925 (now repealed), exercise an option under Section 29
of that Act unless he knew of the option.
[Tripe v British Railways Board; C. of A.; 8/11/1971.]
When, in a building being demolished, floorboards were raised
on each floor to allow rubble to fall down to the ground but
some boards were left to form passageways for workmen, the
passageways were held to be working places within the meaning
of Regulation 28 of the Construction (Working Places) Regula-
tions, 1966, and it was not impracticable to erect guard rails
to prevent the men from falling of! the building.
[Baytin v Willment Brothers Ltd.; C. of A.; 7/7/1971.]
Newport Corporation, as the local school authority, were held
wholly liable for damages for injuries sustained by a six-year-old
boy who was knocked down by a van when he darted across a
pedestrian crossing on a busy main raod, because the authority's
servant, the school traffic warden on duty at the time, who was
49