59 / 196
would be liable if his conduct was such as to evince a reckless
disregard of the spectators' safety, i.e., was foolhardy. The test
is that of negligence, which must be viewed against all the
circumstances.
[Wilks and Another v Cheltenham Home Guard Motor
Cycle and Light Car Club and Another; Court of Appeal;
The Times,
25th March 1971.]
See under
Evidence;
Penrose v Mansfield; Court of Appeal;
The Times,
19th March 1971.
The Greater London Council are liable for fire damage caused
to furniture makers' premises by sparks escaping from a rub-
bish bonfire on a site occupied by the council, though the fire
was lit by an independent contractor's workmen engaged by
the Ministry of Works to remove wartime prefabs under a
contract which stated that "No rubbish may be burned on
the site". The Court decided that as the council were "occu-
piers" of the site and must have known that it was the regular
practice of the particular contractors to burn rubbish on the
site, they were liable for the escape of the fire.
[H. N. Emanuel Ltd. v Greater London Council; Court of
Appeal;
The Times,
10th March 1971.]
A householder whose gas apparatus suddenly explodes is not
debarred from invoking the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur
in a
claim for damages against the gas board merely because there
was a possibility of some outside interference with the appar-
atus. On the other hand, the fact of the explosion does not
automatically attract the doctrine: the householder must estab-
lish the improbability of outside interference with the appar-
atus before he can rely on the doctrine.
[Lloyde v West Midlands Gas; Court of Appeal;
The Times,
13th March 1971.]
Two property companies who issued writs against an architect
alleging negligent supervision of the erection of a building
were held to have been entitled subsequently to serve state-
ments of claim alleging both negligent supervision and negli-
gent design.
The Court, in reserved judgements, allowed an appeal by
Brickfield Properties Ltd. and RosebeU Holdings Ltd., from a
decision of Mr. Justice Milmo last December striking out those
parts of the statements of claim in their actions against Mr.
Bruno Newton of Piccadilly, which related to negligent design.
The dispute related to the inclusion of the words in the
statement of claim concerning the "design" of the building.
The insertion of the "design" claim was, the defendant said,
an extension of the claim in the writ which contravened the
Rules of the Supreme Court in that it included a new cause
of action anterior to that raised in the writ.
Order 18, Rule 15 (2) read: "A statement of claim must
not contain any allegation or claim in respect of a cause of
action unless that cause of action is mentioned in the writ or
arises from facts which are the same as, or include or form
part of, facts giving rise to a cause of action so mentioned . .."
[Brickfield Properties Ltd. v Newton; Rosbell Holdings Ltd.
v Newton; Court of Appeal;
The Times,
12th March 1971.]
Occupational Liability
See under
Negligence;
H. N. Emanuel Ltd. v Greater London
Council; Court of Appeal;
The Times,
10th March 1971.
Planning
A.petrol station cannot display advertisements exceeding an
aggregate area of 4.5 square metres on its forecourt without
obtaining the consent of the local planning authority. A fore-
court is a "forecourt of business premises" within Class V of
Regulation 14 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control
of Advertisements) Regulations, 1969, and so liable to the
restriction on the size of advertisements imposed by Class V
and not "business premises" within Class IV, which imposes no
such restriction.
[Blakemore v Heron Service Station Ltd.; Q.B.D.;
The
Times,
19th March 1971; D.C.]
Caravan dwellers, whether they are tenants or licensees, are
entitled to be served with an enforcement notice as occupiers
of the land within Section 45 (3) of the Town and Country
Planning Act, 1962.
His Lordship, in a reserved judgement, in an action by
Mr.
Harry
Stevens,
of
Staines,
against
Bromley
London Borough Council, held that an enforcement notice
served on Mr. Stevens and on other persons requiring them to
demolish certain roads and hard standings and to discontinue
the use of Mr. Stevens's land as a caravan site was invalid and
of no effect.
[Stevens v Bromley London Borough Council; Ch. Div.;
The Times,
10th March 1971.]
Resulting Trust
See under
Voluntary Transfer;
Hodgson v Marks and Another;
Court of Appeal;
The Times,
16th March 1971.
Sale of Lands
See under
Voluntary Transfer;
Hodgson v Marks and Another;
Court of Appeal;
The Times,
16th March 1971.
Shipping
(Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Fcnton Atkinson and Sir Gordon Willmer) The Court asked to
construe for the first time the general strike clause incorporated
in its present form in the Gencon charterparty about 1922,
held that where a chartered vessel was ordered to discharge at
three ports and a strike delaying discharge was in progress at
the first port, charterers who opted under the clause to wait at
the first port after the lay time had expired until the strike was
at an end were liable to pay only half the demurrage rate for
the period from the end of the strike until discharge was
completed at the third port.
["The Onislos";
The Times,
7th April 1971.]
Charterers under a tank vessel voyage charterparty in common
use were held to be entitled to use some of their permitted lay
time waiting for a berth as near as they could get to the
commercial area of a small port and were not liable to ship-
owners for damages under another clause of the charterparty
for not providing a place on the vessel's arrival, for to construe
the particular clause otherwise would be to make the charterers
pay twice over for the same time.
['The Delion Spirit"; Court of Appeal;
The Times,
2nd
April 1971.]
Trade Descriptions
See under
Crime;
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v. Natross; House
of Lords;
The Times,
1st April 1971.
Tribunal—Majority Decision
A rent assessment committee deciding a fair rent under the
Rent Act, 1968, may give their decision by a majority. Their
Lordships to decided when refusing an application by Picea
Holdings Ltd. for an order of certiorari to quash a majority
decision of a rent assessment committee of the London Rent
Assessment Panel which fixed the fair rent of a flat in Little
Dover House, Roehampton, at£630 a year exclusive of rates
but inclusive of £55 for services registered as on Uth July
1969. Their Lordships also dismissed an appeal from the
committee's decision, and refused leave to appeal.
[Picea Holdings Ltd. v London Rent Assessment Panel;
Q.B.D.;
The Times,
6th April 1971; D.C.]
Voluntary Transfer
A widow who transferred the legal estate in the house in
which she had lived, as owner, since 1939, to her lodger
without financial consideration, was held to be entitled to be
registered as proprietor in place of the person to whom the
lodger had sold it, the registration to be free from a charge in
favour of the building society to which the purchaser had
mortgaged it.
[Hodgson v Marks and Another; Court of Appeal;
The
Times,
16th March 1971.]
[Bell (Inspector of Taxes) v Johnson; Ch. Div.;
The Times,
30th March 1971.]
See under
Crime;
Attorney General of Hongkong v Pat Chiuk-
wah and Others; Privy Council;
The Times,
23rd March 1971.
A stylophone, a miniature electronic organ, invented in 1967,
played by touching with a stylo a metal strip shaped like a
keyboard but with immovable keys, was held to be a keyboard
musical instrument within group 19 (1) of Part 1 of Schedule 1
to the Purchase Tax Act, 1963, and so exempt from tax.
[Dubreq Studios Ltd. v Commissioners of Customs and
Excise; Court of Appeal;
The Times,
13th March 1971.]
The platform of a railway station is not a public place within
the meaning ofthe Public Order Act, 1936, the Divisional
Court decided when dismissing a police appeal and upholding
the ruling of Judge David, Q.C., chairman of Cheshire Quarter
Sessions.
The chairman had allowed the appeal of eight young men
who had been convicted by Bromborough magistrates of using
59