514 / 736
cases
listed
for
trial at
the present sittings of
the
Central Criminal Court, and that he was not satisfied
that there were sufficient grounds for adjourning the
trial.
Mr. Connolly
told
the court that there were four
senior counsel and five junior cousel whose names still
remained on the panel. A number of them had been
approached by Mr. O'Donnell, but none of them was
available for next Monday.
In reply to the court Mr. Connolly stated that Mr.
O'Donnell had not informed the President that he had
approached counsel and that they were not available to
appear. He agreed that the President should be informed.
If the two men were willing to surrender bail, counsel
would then be free to act for them gratuitously.
Mr. Barrington
said
that one
factor which had
influenced
them
in not bringing
to
the President's
attention the fact that counsel would not be available
to act. was that a similar situation had arisen in another
case and
the President had been
informed
that the
counsel who had been briefed would not, in fact, be
available. In that case the President did not alter his
refusal to adjourn the hearing.
The State
(O'Leary and O'Brien)
v. Attorney-
General—Supreme Court—unreported—26 June 1970.
PLANNING
Architect entitled to act on representation of planning
officer.
The Court of Appeal
(Lord Denning and Lord
Justices Sachs and Megaw) dismissing an appeal by
Westminster Corporation of Mr. Justice Bridge declar
ing in favour of developers, Lever Finance Ltd. that a
valid planning permission under the Town Planning Act
was in existence for the erection of a house under con
struction in St. John's Wood. The Court held that an
architect, who found it necessary to vary the plans for a
housing development after they had been approved by
the local planning authority and, acting in accordance
with the authority's settled practice, consulted a plann
ing officer, who told him that the proposed variation
was not material and that no further application for
planning permission was necessary, was entitled to act
on
that representation and go ahead with the work.
Where the evidence showed so sensible a nractice. the
local authority were bound by what the planning officer
had stated.
(Lever Finance Ltd. v. Westminster Corporation—
The Times,
22nd July 1970.)
TAX LAW
Revenue Commissioners cannot be made party
to a
Dispute between private citizens, even
for con
venience.
The House of Lords (Lord Reid, Morris, Dilhorne,
Wilberforce
and Diplock)
allowed
an
interlocutory
appeal by the trustees of a family settlement made by
the late Mr. Guy Vandervell from the Court of Appeal
{Lord Denning, Lord Justices Sachs and Karminski)
(1970) Ch. 44—which held in favour of the executors
of the estate that the Court had jurisdiction to order
that the Revenue Commissioners be joined as second
defendants
to an originating summons
taken out by
the executors against
the
trustees, as persons whose
presence was necessary. The House of Lords held that
the present Rule of the Supreme Court, which gives the
Court a discretion to order the joinder in any cause or
matter of any person who ought to have been joined as
a party and whose presence is necessary to ensure that
all matters in dispute "may be effectually and com
pletely determined" is not wide enough to entitle the
court to order the Inland Revenue Commissioners to be
joined as a party to a dispute between private citizens
merely because it would be just and convenient to do
so. Where, therefore, the executors of a large estate who
had been assessed to surtax on dividends held by the
trustees of a family settlement made by the deceased
began an action in the High Court against the trustee
to decide to whom the dividends belonged and sought
to join the revenue as a party in order that the revenue
might be bound by the court's decision, the House of
Lords held that though the Crown consented to be
joined and to be bound by the decision, such joinder
should not be ordered because the revenue sought no
relief, did not seek to be joined, and therefore their
presence was not "necessary".
(Vandervell Trustees Ltd. v. White—
The Times,
16th July, 1970.)
CRIME
The Court of Criminal Appeal set aside a conviction
of shop breaking and larceny against three men who had
no legal representation during their trial in the Central
Criminal Court where they were found guilty by a jury.
A new trial was ordered. The Court took the view that
in this case it was most desirable that the accused men
should have been represented by Counsel and Solicitor
and that as a
result of not being represented there
might have been a miscarriage of justice. They had
appealed on the grounds that an application for free
legal aid had been refused and that later when the case
came on for hearing an application for adjournment
was refused and they claimed that they had been de
prived of a fair opportunity of presenting their defence
and that the trial was accordingly unsatisfactory.
(People [A.-G.] v. John Holden. Court of Criminal
Appeal 23/7/70 unreported.)
TRESPASS
Inquiry Agent liable to pay damages for trespass in
house.
Mr. Justice Geoffrey Lane held that permission given
to an
inquiry agent by a wife separated from her
husband to enter the husband's home
is not sufficient
to prevent the entry from being trespass. He awarded
to the husband, Mr. Ernest Joliffe, of High Street,
Slough, £400 damages and costs against the inquiry
agent, Mr. Cyril Hearne of Egham, for trespass and
assault. Mr.
Jolliffe
also
sued
his wife's
solicitors,
but that claim was dismissed with costs against Mr.
Joliffe
It was held that on the present occasion the incursion
by Mr. Hearne had all the marks of high-handed and
insolent behaviour. Accordingly
the husband, having
three times asked Mr. Hearne to leave, was entitled
to use
reasonable
force
to get him out, and Mr.
Hearne committed an assault by striking him on the
head.
(Jolliffe v. Wilmett & Co. and Hearne—
The Time!,
21st July 1970.)
60