176 / 736
agreed
to withdraw his proof
in bankruptcy
against X. Both the Crown and the
taxpayer
agreed that an entry should have been made in
respect of the liability of the 1956 accounts and
that an adjustment was to be made. The tax
payer contended that the amount to which he
was liable at the end of the period for which the
accounts were prepared should be entered, the
Crown argued for
the sum of £3,000. The
special
commissioners held
in
favour of
the
Crown. On appeal by the taxpayer :
Held, that, although the estimated liability, if
originally entered, would not have fallen to be
altered by reason of subsequent events, where
the account had to be reopened by reason of
error, it is the true amount of the debt ultimately
established should be entered.
(Simpson
v.
Jones
(Inspector
of
Taxes)
[1968] l.W.L.R. p. 1066).
Stamp Duty, Variation of Leases
Two long leases were varied by deeds so as to
increase the rents reserved. The deed of variation
was assessed
to Stamp Duty by charging
the
ad valorum lease duty on the amount of the in
crease in the average rents on the basis that it
operated as a surrender of the two leases and a
grant of new leases for terms equal to the un-
expired residues of your original terms. It was
held dismissing
the appeal
that
the deed of
variation operated to increase the rents but not
as a surrender of the original leases. However
the deed of variation was chargeable under the
heading "Bond covenant etc." in the Stamp Act,
1891 Schedule
1
the amount chargable being
limited by Section 77
(5) of that Act as if the
deed were a
lease or as
that section was a
relieving provision.
(Gable Construction Co. Ltd. v. I.R.C. [1968]
2 All E.R. 968).
BOOK REVIEW
Constitutional Law in Northern Ireland—
A Study
in Regional Government by Harry Calvert—Pp.
xxi,
400—Belfast, NORTHERN
IRELAND
LEGAL
QUARTERLY, 1968, £5 0 0.
This admirable work,
the
fruit of
several
years labour, has now appeared, and Dr. Calbert
deserves
the warmest congratulations as much
of Legal practitioners as of academic
lawyers.
Some readers may agree with the view expressed
by Gavan Duffy J. in
Cogan v. The Minister for
Finance—
(1941) I.R. at p. 402—that the Govern
ment of Ireland Act 1920 was a statutory abor
tion sardonically entitled "an Act to provide for
the better government of Ireland". In any event
the sections of that Act still in force are deemed
to represent the Constitution of Northern Ire
land. Dr. Calvert has not only carried out ex
pertly a detailed examination of
the practical
problems arising under this Act but his deep
scholarship and learning are discernible in con
sidering
the
jurisprudence and case
law
that
have derived under the Act. The author has also
analysed with cold
logic and
lucid
reasoning
some of the Statutes of the Stormont Parliament.
Of the Special Powers Act, he states on page
381
that "the Act does evidence a radical de
parture from
the procedural safeguards
tradi
tionally and justifiably regarded as desirable for
the preservation of civil liberties" and then, with
the cold perspicacity of
the academic
lawyer,
proceeds to examine it ruthlessly. In considering
the question of compensation under the Town
Planning Acts in
McConnell v. Belfast Corpora
tion,
(1957)
there is
little doubt that Sheil J's
remarks, though obiter, are correct, and that one
must examine whether the Planning Code con
flicts with Section 5 of the Government of Ireland
Act: Dr. Galvert correctly doubts the reasoning
of Hanna J. in
Pigs Marketing Board v. Don-
nelly—
(1939)
I.R.
413,
as
"Judges
do
not
hesitate to fix standards for themselves in other
circumstances, even though questions of politics,
economics or sociology may be concerned".
It is rather alarming (p. 167) that "none of the
decisions of the Irish Courts—particularly those
of first instance—are binding on the Northern
Ireland Courts since 1920—in fact the ironical
position has
arisen
that despite
the doctrine
that it is customary to cite jurisprudence from
all Common Law countries, nevertheless one
would cite Irish precedents since 1920 at one's
peril to certain Northern judges.
In
the case of
Duffy v. The Minister
for
Labour—
(1962)
N.I.6—where
the
Court
of
Appeal narrowly held that the Safeguarding of
Employment Act 1947 was not
ultra vires
the
Government of
Ireland Act 1920,
it
took no
cognizance of Article 18 of the European Social
Charter which specifies the right to engage in
gainful occupation in the territory of other Con
tracting Parties; it is to be noted that this Char
ter was duly signed and ratified by the United
Kingdom, and a most solemn undertaking
is
given in it to apply the regulations liberally. The
Court reached the legalistic conclusion that the
legislation was made for peace, order and good
government; furthermore it did not affect aliens,
as the touchstone of the Act was not nationality
34