The Gazette 1967/71

303 / 736

with the Netherlands Universities Foundation for
International Co-operation, will be held for the
second consecutive time from 18th to 30th August
1969. Participation is open to graduates in law
and law students in their final year. The medium
of instruction is English. Full information can be
obtained from the Netherlands University Foun
dation for International Go-operation, 27 Molen-
straat, The Hague, Netherlands.
SOLICITORS ACT, 1954
Apprenticeship and Education (Amendment)
Regulations 1969
These regulations, which came into force on 12th
June 1969, prescribe that commerce is to be in
cluded as an additional optional subject for the
Preliminary Examination.
CASES OF THE MONTH
Negligence: preliminary decision as to issue triable
whether Home Office is negligent for theft of
yacht by boys escaping from Borstal
The Home Office maintained a Borstal institution
from which a number of boys escaped. They boar
ded the plaintiff's yacht, cast her adrift, and caused
considerable damage to the yacht and its contents.
It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants,
the Home Office, were liable for the damage
caused owing to their negligence in failing to
exercise effective control or supervision over the
boys. It was also alleged as a preliminary point
that the Home Office owed a duty of care to the
plaintiff capable of giving rise to liability for dam
ages as regards the effective detention of the boys,
and the manner in which they were to be em
ployed, disciplined, controlled and supervised.
It was held that in appropriate circumstances
such a liability could exist. The plaintiffs had
claimed that there was a breach of the common
law duty to take care on the assumption that the
damage caused could have been foreseen, and that
consequently the defendants were liable at com
mon law for the negligent exercise of their duty
by their servants in supervising the boys. Accord
ingly the case ought to proceed on the basis of
ascertaining whether in the particular circum
stances there had been a lack of reasonable care
on the part of the defendant.
Dorset Yacht Co. v the Home Office (1969)
2 W.L.R. 100S—C. A. (Lord ing M.R.
Edmund Davies and Phiblimore, .
Insurance: failure to notify insurers of accident
The defendant Robles had driven his car danger
ously, with the result that the car had collided
with plaintiff's house. Contrary to a condition in
his insurance policy, he did not notify his insurers
of the accident and claim within the prescribed
five days. When proceedings were instituted against
him, he denied liability and joined the insurers
as third parties.
The Court considered the effect of the defen
dant's failure to notify his insurers. It was held
that the insurance company had an unlimited
right to repudiate or accept liability as they
thought fit, but they must make up their minds
within a reasonable time. In this case, they had
been informed of the claim in July 1967, but did
not repudiate liability until the 29th November
1967. It was consequently held that more than a
reasonable time had elapsed. The company had
thus lost their right to election, and to an indem
nity from the defendant.
Alien v Robles, The Times, 20th May 1969.
Licensing: Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960
Section 14 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960,
provides for applications for licences in respect of
premises to which no licence is attached, and
applies where premises have been demolished
within two years of the application and new prem
ises are erected located on the site of the original
premises, or, "if they are not so located, that they
are located either partly on that site or in the
immediate vicinity. In. this instance, as the new
premises were removed a distance of seven hundred
and thirty-three yards from the old premises by
the most convenient route, the application had
been dismissed in the Dublin Circuit Court by
Judge Conroy. On appeal to the High Court,
McLoughlin J., indicated that his inclination was
to accede to such applications, but that no evi
dence had been given which satisfied him that
the new premises were in the immediate vicinity
of the original premises. The application was
accordingly refused.
Irish Cinemas Ltd. (applicants) in re Intoxi
cating Liquor Act, 1960, High Court, 8th Nov.
1968.
Road Traffic Act, 1961: defective summons
The defendant was charged, convicted, sentenced
and fined in his absence with furnishing particulars
which were false and misleading on an application
for a licence. On appeal by way of certiorari to
the Supreme Court it was held, affirming Kenny,
24