387 / 736
Drainage beards were held to have a right to enter
land for the purpose of exercising any of their functions
under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, on giving seven
days' notice.
Patterson and Another v. Fanningly Internal Drainage
Board.
Q.B.D. 28 Jan. 1970.
The courts have no jurisdiction to determine whether
or not national insurance contributions have been paid,
Mr. Justice Chapman decided when he ordered the
question to be referred to the Secretary of State for Social
Services for him to determine it. His Lordship said that
the Minister had to administer a complex and compre
hensive scheme, and that there would be endless sources
of ccnfusion and doubt if he did not retain sole control
Department of Health and Social Security v. Walker
Dean Walker Ltd.
Q.B.D. 4/2/70.
Contract
Their Lordships held that a covenant restraining a
milk roundsman, for one year after leaving the employ
ment of dairymen, from serving or selling milk or dairy
produce to any person who at any time during the six
months prior to his leaving the dairymen's employment
had been a customer of that dairy and served by him
wrs not too wide and was accordingly enforceable
Horre Counties Dairies Ltd. and Another v. Skilton and
Another.
Court of Appeal, 21/1/70.
When a buyer telephones a cable in answer to a cabled
offer, the onus is on him to ensure that his message is
properly received by the cable company, Mr. Justice
Waller decided, in a reserved judgment awarding £3,728
damages to a Canadian charter flight company for breach
of contract to sell him an amphibious aircraft. Nortland
Airlines, of Winnipeg, succeeded in a claim against Denis
Ferranti Meters Ltd., of Bangor, North Wales, over a
Grumman Mallard aircraft with a quick exchange com
ponent engine and spare parts.
Northcraft Airlines Ltd. v. Denis Ferranti Meters Ltd.
Q.B.D. 12/2/70.
The Sunday Observance Act, 1677, did not operate to
invalidate a binding contract in writing made on a Sunday
in 1968 between ?n English company and a Portuguese
company, Mr. Justice Mocatta decided when giving judg
ment for the English company on a preliminary issue.
The dispute arose over an order by Rolloswin Invest
ments Ltd., the plaintiffs, to Chromolit Portugal Cute-
larias E. Productos, Metalicos, S.A.R.L., the defendants for
100,000 sets of 24 pieces of cutlery in boxes. The question
in the issue was whether a contract in writing containing
a submission to arbitration had been entered into between
the parties on October 20, 1968.
His Lordship said that the plaintiffs were a one-man
company. It was incorporated in 1965, with Mr. Gabriel
Moschi as managing director. The order was hand
written, in block capitals, rn three sheets of the plaintiff's
headed notepaper. It had been written by a sales repre
sentative of the defendants, acting as interpreter for one
of their directors who signed it. It was also signed by
another director who was in London and had taken part
in the negotiations.
Rolloswin Investments Ltd. v. Chromolit Portugal Cute-
hrias E. Productos Metalicos S.A.R.L.
Court of Appeal, 10/2/70.
Contract
Insolvent Auctioneer Stakeholder—Principles Applicable
Plaintiff Company, acting through a Dublin Solicitor,
wished to purchase from Defendant, a Cork Solicitor,
premises in Grand Parade, Cork, subject to the following
conditions:—
1. The preliminary agreement between the plaintiffs
and a Cork Auctioneer was to be subject to a
subsequent satisfactory contract, which would pro
vide for completion within six months of contract
This unenforceable agreement was finalised on i8th
July 1965 when the purchase price was stated to
be £11,000, and made subject to a subsequent
formal agreement.
2.
It was also made subject to town planning approval
of the ground landlords for erection of new pre
mises of not more than 5 storeys.
The plaintiffs as purchasers paid the auctioneer £1,000
as STAKEHOLDERS such deposit being
repayable
immediately in full if a satisfactory contract were not
signed within 3 months. As a result of difficulties with
Cork Corporation, the sale was never completed. The
plaintiffs tried to recover the deposit from the Auctioneer,
but only succeeded in obtaining £399 odd. The Auctioneer
was insolvent, but the plaintiffs failed to notify his guaran
tors of the proceedings, and so could not recover anything
against them under the Auctioneers Acts. The plaintiff
claimed the balance of thei deposit for the default of the
Auctioneer. The Auctioneer was not
the defendant's
agent to negotiate the sale, or to receive the deposit.
Kenny
J.
reviewed
all
the
authorities
in
relation
to the term "STAKEHOLDER" from 1816 onwards,
and, on the strength of them, held that the Defendant
Vendor must bear the loss when the stakeholder cannot
pay the deposit. The deposit paid to a Stakeholder is a
payment in part of the purchase money. When a sale
cannot be completed, and the purchaser becomes entitled
to recover the deposit from the Stakeholder, the Vendor
should be held liable for the default. Even though the
Vendor was innocent in the matter there must be judg
ment against him for the £601 odd.
(Lamas Overseas
Investments Ltd. v. Harvey—Kenny
J.—26th January 1970—unreported).
Costs
Iteirs of Cost Determined by Taxing Master Reasonable
In The State (Michael Browne) v. The Governor of
Limerick Prison and District Justice Feran (1967) I.R.
14?—the Supreme Court had held that henceforth the
State may appeal from an order of release given by the
High Court in
habeas corpus
proceedings. Arising out of
this decision, the prcsecutor presented a bill of costs
relating the Supreme Court appeal before the Taxing
Master, and the Taxing Master subsequently increased
the amounts on some items, but the prosecutor was still
dissatisfieid and appealed to the High Court to review
these items. In this connection, Murnaghan J. held as
follows:—
(i) He should only review the taxation where it was
demonstrated that the Taxing Master erred in
principle or in amount.
rz)
The length of time an appeal is at hearing in the
Supreme Court is not to be taken into account in
fixing the solicitor's instruction fee.
101