492 / 736
resulting in a substantial decline
in
the number of
chemists' shops to the public detriment.
In Re Medicaments Reference, Restrictive Practices
Court, 5/6/70.
Road Traffic
A plant hire company who were under the mistaken
impression that the Greater London Council had dis
pensed with the requirement that they give notice when
they proposed to use very large vehicles with heavy
loads on roads in the council's area as they had not
been previously prosecuted for failing to do so, were
guilty of offences contrary
to
the Motor Vehicles
(Construction and Use) Regulations, 1969 and section
64(2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.
George Cohen 600 Group Ltd. v. Hird, Q.B.D.,
3/6/70.
Tax
Self propelled mobile concrete mixers taxable at lower
rate.
Defendants charged that in Cork in April 1968 they
did use a motor lorry which was untaxed under the
Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act 1952, and that
under Section 13 of the Roads Traffic Act, 1920, they
had incurred a treble penalty of £1,815- The tax had
expired at the end of 1967 and the defendants had sent
a cheque to Cork County Council tendering the same
amount as in the previous years, i.e. the sum of £53
taxed on horsepower, as set out in Section 1
(61
(c) of
the 1952 Act: the cheque was returned on the ground
that the vehicle should be
taxed by weight, under
Section 1
(5) of that Act, and that consequently the
duty payable was £605. District Justice O'Donovan
holding that the lower tax was payable dismissed the
summons on the merits in Cork District Court, but,
at the request of the prosecution, he stated a case to
the High Court, as to whether he had arrived at the
correct decision. Henchy J. held that the Justice's opinion
was erroneous and that the higher tax on a weight basis
was chargeable. The defendants appealed.
Held by the Supreme Court (O'Dalaigh C. J., Walsh
and Budd J.J.) that the appeal should be allowed on
the ground that the lower tax taxed on horsepower
under Section 1
(6)
(c) of the 1952 Act was annlic-
able. Even if the vehicle was a lorry in which a tank
of water of 200 gallons, and a drum capable of re
volving gravel, cement and sand, had been built, it does
not follow that the vehicle was constructed specifically
for that purpose; it was constructed for the mixing or
agitation of concrete, and could do so whether
the
vehicle was moving or stationery. If, on the wording,
Section 1
(5) of the Act of 1952 could in a general way
apply
to
this vehicle,
then Section
1
(6)
(c). as
amended by
the Finance Act 1960.
is much more
specific,
inasmuch as
it speaks of some machine or
workshop which is built in as part of the vehicle or
otherwise
attached
thereto.
However
in
the
circumstances the District Justice should have convicted
the defendants of not having taxed the vehicle bv im
posing as penalty three times the amount of the lower
tax. (i.e. £159).
(Attorney-General (Power) v. Tohn Wood Ltd. —
unreported — Supreme Court — 7th November 1969).
LAND REGISTRATION EXTENSION OF
COMPULSORY AREAS
Title Requirements
Following the extension by Ministerial regula
tions of the areas of compulsory registration to
Carlow, Meath and Laois, solicitors must give
serious considerations to the requirements of the
Registrar of Titles on applications for registra
tion
of
purchasers with
absolute
title. A
purchaser who accepts a title which will not
satisfy the Registrar may find himself in the
position that the equity note cannot be discharged
within the period of six months prescribed by
section 25 of the Registration of Title Act 1964.
The section provides that in any case in which
registration becomes compulsory a person shall
not acquire the estate or interest purported to be
conveyed under a conveyance or transfer on sale
unless he is registered as owner of the interest
within six months after the date of the instrument.
In other words the purchaser of a freehold or
leasehold estate who fails to get himself registered
with absolute title within six months from the
date or the purchase whether by public auction
or private treaty will acquire no legal estate in
the property.
These provisions raise the nightmare of serious
dangers to purchasers and headaches for their
legal advisers. It is well known that in the past,
purchasers have been willing to accept consider
ably less than the statutory marketable title to
property
in
the
towns covered by
the new
compulsory provisions. In such cases, unless the
Registrar of Titles is willing to modify his require
ments, a purchaser accepting
the
title of an
existing vendor may
find himself caught by
section 25 of the Act. He will have parted with
the purchase money but may not get himself
registered and his title may be void. Representa
tions have been made made by the Society to the
Registrar of Titles drawing attention
to
the
difficulties mentioned but as yet no assurance has
been received as to the steps which the Registrar
will take to avoid these difficulties. The position
is particularly serious where property is put up
for sale by public auction. In such case the pur
chaser and his solicitor must accept the title
offered in the conditions if he wants to acquire
the property. The President in his statement at
the Ordinary General Meeting of the Society on
May 14th drew attention to this position.
38