53 / 294
said to be "getting on in years", was not doing enough to make
sure that the children crossed in safety.
[Toole (an infant) v Shelbourne Pouffes Ltd. and Another:
28/7/1971.]
The law of negligence was extended to a new area when a local
council was held liable to the purchaser of a house which devel-
oped defects some years after it had been built because the
council's building inspector had been negligent in approving the
building at foundation level and had failed to see that it was
being built on an old rubbish tip.
[Dutton v Bognor Regis U.D.C.; C. of A.; 17/12/1971.]
Patents
Their Lordships, sitting as patents appeal tribunal, in a reserved
judgment, allowed an appeal by Schering AG, of Berkamen,
Germany, from the refusal of the superintending examiner of
patents to register a method of contraception on the ground that
the process was incapable of protection under the Patents Act,
1949, as it was a process for the treatment of human beings.
They directed that the application should be allowed to
proceed.
[In re Schering AG Application; Ch. Div.; 12/7/1971.]
The manufacture and sale of a substance which is blended with
others in such a way that its identity is not discoverable from
the product sold was held not to be a non-secret prior user
within Section 14 (1) (e) and (3) of the Patents Act, 1949, so as
to prevent the subsequent grant of a patent to someone else for
the substance.
[Ex parte Beecham Group Ltd.; Q.B.D.; 13/10/1971.]
Planning
Advertisements on the walls of public houses depicting the figure
of a man, an open packet of cigarettes and a glass of beer did
not contain "figures, symbols, emblems or devices within the
meaning of Regulation 14 (2) (a) of the Town and Country
Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations, 1969, so that
the height limit of 0.75 metre did not apply to the subjects
depicted. The Divisional Court so derided in a reserved judg-
ment dismissingwith costs the appeal of a prosecutor against the
decision of Bury justices last November.
[McDonald v Howard Cook Advt. Ltd.; Q.B.D.; 19/10/71.]
Privilege
His Lordship rejected claims by the Commissioners of Customs
and Excise for legal professional privilege and Grown privilege
in respect of certain documents obtained for assessing purchase
tax valuation in arbitration proceedings between them and
Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd., of Clapham.
He ordered the commissioners to file within fifteen d a p a
further affidavit specifying the documents which were communi-
cations between them and their solicitors for the purpose solely
of obtaining or giving legal advice or assistance, and to produce
for inspection immediately thereafter the remaining documents.
He granted leave to appeal.
The rule as to professional privilege was one which protected
communications between a client and his professional legal
adviser. It did not protect communications inside any organisa-
tion which had an internal legal branch or department with
that legal branch. By no stretch of imagination could the com-
missioners be regarded as lay clients of their own legal branch.
[Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd. v Commis-
sioners of Customs and Excise; Q.B.D.; 15/7/1971.]
Procedure
See under
Damages;
January
Gazette,
p. 8; Thornton v Swan
Hunter (Shipbuilders) Ltd.; C. of A.; 25/10/1971.
See under
Negligence;
Lane v Willis; C. of A.; 1/12/1971.
(page 48)
Because of uncertainty about what was said in the summing-up
due to the inadequacy of a shorthand note taken by an inexperi-
enced shorthand writer, the court allowed an appeal by John
Raymond Spillane, and quashed his conviction. Lord Justice
Megaw emphasised that it was the duty of the judge, counsel
and court officials to see that the evidence and summing-up in
a criminal trial were properly recorded.
[Regina v Spillane; C. of A.; 8/10/1971.]
Property
See under
Family;
Cracknell v Cracknel!; C. of A.; 22/7/1971.
(page 49)
Race Relations
A rule by Ealing London Borough Council that to be accepted
on its waiting list, an applicant for housing accommodation must
be a British subject was held not to be unlawful as being a
discrimination on the ground of "national origins" within Sec-
tions 1 (1) and 5 of the Race Relations Act, 1968, and the
authority was entitled to seek a declaration to that effect in
the High Court.
[Ealing London Borough Council v Race Relations Board;
H. of L.; 16/12/1971.]
See under
Clubs;
January
Gazette,
p. 6; Race Relations Board
v Cheeter and Others; C. of A.; 14/12/1971.
Redundancy
His Lordship ruled that journalists employed by Associated
Newspapers Ltd., made redundant by the absorption of the
Daily Sketch
by the
Daily Mail
and by changes in the produc-
tion of the London
Evening News
were not persons "retiring
with the consent of the company" so as to entitle them to
deferred pensions under an early retirement clause in the rules
of the Harmsworth Pension Fund, a non-contributory pension
scheme.
His Lordship further ruled that such persons were not entitled
to redundancy payments under the terms of their contracts of
employment.
[Young and Others v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others;
Ch. Div.; 22/7/1971.]
An offer in writing under Section 3 (2) (b) of the Redundancy
Payments Act, 1965, need not be contained in one document
provided that the document refers to other documents intended
to form part of the offer or that the circumstances imply that
they could be understood as forming part of the offer.
[Ramseyer Motors Ltd. v Broadway and Another; G. of A.;
7/10/1971.]
A stiike or lock-out can continue after the strikers have been
dismissed. Therefore, where a workman is dismissed by his
employer while on strike and is afterwards re-engaged, the
period between his dismissal and his re-engagement does not
break the continuity of his employment for the purposes of
claiming under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965.
[Bloomfield and Others v Springfield Hosiery Finishing Co.
Ltd.]
A taxicab driver who gave the taxi owner 65 per cent of the
takings registered on the clock and the cost of an employed
person's national insurance stamp was not an "employee" for
the purposes of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, and there-
fore not entitled to a redundancy payment when the taxi was
sold.
[Challinor v Taylor National; National Industrial Relations
Court; 22/10/1971.]
In deciding whether an employee is not to be taken to be dis-
missed by his employer under Section 3 (2) of the Redundancy
Payments Act, 1965, if his contract of employment is renewed
or he is re-engaged by the same employer under
a
new contract,
the individual terms of the contracts are to be looked at and
not the contracts as a whole.
[Rose v Harry Trickett and Son Ltd.; Q.B.D.; 19/7/1971.]
Registered Lands
A caution under Section 54 (1) of the Land Registration Act,
1925, can be lodged by a person with an interest in the pro-
ceeds of sale of land. This is in accordance rather than aga.inst
the scheme of the Act.
[Elias Mitchell and Another; Ch. Div.; 9/12/1971.]
Road Traffic Acts
Justices who accepted a motorist's plea of guilty to a charge of
failing without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen for &
laboratory test contrary to Section 3 (3) of the Road Safety Act,
1967, were wrong to conclude that matters of possible defence
were special reasons for not ordering him to be disqualified in
accordance with Section 5 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1962.
[Hockin v Weston; Q.B.D.; 29/7/1971.]
A woman who drove in the wrong direction on the fast lane of
a dual carriageway road at midnight and was convicted of
dangerous driving without being allowed to give evidence
explaining that it was not her fault that she was there, suc-
ceeded in an appeal against conviction.
[Regina v Gosrey; C. of A.; 5/7/1971.]
50