174 / 736
1854, Section 71 but breach of such statutory
duty does not create a civil right to damages.
The appeal allowed.
(Peter Magee v. Peter Grant. High Court of
Justice in Northern Ireland, 27th May, 1968).
Employment, Wrongful dismissal
It was held that an employee who is wrongfully
dismissed
is not entitled
to his
remuneration
after the date of his dismissal—his sole remedy
is for damages. Therefore, a claim by a company
managing pop artists for their fees after their
contract had been repudiated was misconceived.
It was also decided by a majority that the per
sonal manager of a group of pop artists was
under no absolute duty to retain their confidence,
and that his leaving them in the middle of an
American tour without telling their leader did not
constitute a fundamental breach of contract.
The plaintiff
company were
appointed
as
manager of the Kinks pop group in return for
a fee of 10 per cent, of the group's earnings. Mr.
Larry Page performed
the obligations of
the
plaintiff and acted as personal manager. During
an American tour he left the group and returned
to England and while he told each of the other
members he did not tell the leader.
The Group decided to have nothing further to
do with Mr. Page as a result and wrote the
plaintiffs saying that their contract was at an
end. The plaintiffs however asserted
that
the
contract continued and claimed an account of fees
due to them.
(Denmark Productions Ltd. v. Boscobell Pro
ductions Ltd.
Times,
June 29th).
Road Traffic—Immobilised heavy lorry on clear
way at night.
A learner driver, riding a motor scooter on a
clearway 30ft 6 in. wide collided with the back
of an articulated lorry 7ft. 8 in. wide stationary
at the side of the road, with rear lights visible
for
a
reasonable distance. As
particulars of
negligence he alleged that the defendants failed
to park off the roadway or in a side road or to
take any proper precautions for the safety of
other road users, contending inter alia that a
flashing lamp should have been set in the road
way some distance behind the breakdown to give
earlier warning than the rear lights provided. The
defendants denied negligence and pleaded con
tributory negligence. The lorry had been
im
mobilised by a sudden and unexpected mechanical
failure of a pump and had remained on the road
for 3 hours until repaired during which time
another vehicle collided with the rear and others
narrowly missed it. No evidence was given of a
practice among lorry owners to provide flashing
or other lamps to set in the roadway. It was held
that the defendants were not negligent and he
referred to Moore v. Maxwells in which lights
had failed completely.
(Butland v. Coxhead and Others. 112. S. J.
465).
Vendor and Purchaser; specific performance
J. bought a house in 1947 and entered into an
agreement with the plaintiffs whereby the plain
tiffs
lived
in
the house with J. and his wife
looking after them and in return had a tenancy
of the upper storeys and further an option to
purchase the house for £1,000 after the death of
J. and his wife. The plaintiffs agreed to pay
£4 10 a month, the payments to be treated as
part payments of the purchase price. J. died in
1963 and his wife
in 1965 and the plaintiffs
sought to exercise their option purchase but the
defendants, the executors of the J's refused to
convey the house to them, contending that the
agreement was void for a variety of reasons. The
plaintiffs
claimed
inter
alia
specific
perfor
mance of which the court would not supervise.
Gross J. said that the defendants contention
was misconceived. Where the obligations binding
on a person seeking specific performance had
been fully carried out before the obligations of
the other side were sought to be enforced it was
hard to see how the mutuality principle came in
at all. The plaintiffs we entitled to an order for
specific performance. Order accordingly.
(Kirkland and Another v. Bird and Another.
112 S.J. 440).
Company, Validity of Unregistered Charge
By an agreement in writing dated 27th July, 1965
the first defendant agreed to sell to the second
defendant, a company a plot of land for £37,900,
it being provided inter alia that 75 per cent of
the purchase money should be secured by a first
mortgage of
the property payable as provided
therein. On February 23rd 1966
the property
was
conveyed
to
the
second defendant
and
£9,475 was paid towards the purchase price and
the balance of £28,425 was left to be secured
by a legal charge. On the same day the second
defendant charged the property to the first defen
dant with the payment of the outstanding bal-
32