559 / 736
the purpose of making concrete blocks; the council
never asked for further clarification. The grant of
permission did not specify the purposes for which
the structures were to be used. Therefore, under
Section 28 (6) of the 1963 Act, permission must
be construed as including permission to use the
structure for the purpose for which they were
designed, i.e. for producing ready-mix concrete.
The
implied change in development has been
permitted by
the
planning authority, and there is
no question to be referred to the Minister. Pringle
J. therefore granted the declaration sought.
[Readymix (Eire) Ltd. v Dublin County Coun
cil and the Minister for Local Government; High
Court; Pringle J.; Unreported; 12 August 1970.]
TAX LAW
The sale of 26^ acres of turf by a farming com
pany was held to be part of its trade of farming
and the receipts therefrom taxable under Schedule
D, Case I.
[Lowe (Inspector of Taxes) v J. W. Ashmore
Ltd.; Ch. Div.; 27 July 1970.]
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 completely 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 trustees to determine to whom the
dividends belonged and sought to join the revenue
to 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".
[Vandervall Trustees Ltd. v White and others;
House of Lords—(1970) 3 AER 16.]
The expression "the directors"
in Section 25
(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1952, means the
directors at the
time of making the statutory
declaration, and not former directors of the com
pany who were directors at the time the material
income was received.
Section 25 (1) provides that "Where the special
commissioners have issued a notice requiring any
company to furnish them with particulars of the
actual income from all sources of the company as
respects any year .
.
. the directors of the company,
if they are of opinion that there has not been and
will not be any avoidance" of the payment of sur
tax through failure to distribute a reasonable part
of that income "may make a statutory declaration
to
that effect
stating
the
facts and circum
stances upon which their opinion is based".
[Hanstead Investments Ltd. and others v Inland
Revenue Commissioners; Ch. Div.;
The Times,
29 June 1970.1
TRADE DESCRIPTIONS
The statutory defence under Section 24 (1) of
the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968—that the offence
of applying a false trade description to goods was
due to a mistake—is not available if the mistake
was that of anyone other than the person charged.
[Birkenhead and District Co-Operative Society
Ltd. v Roberts; Q.B.D.; The Times, 9 July 1970.]
TRADE UNION
Seven
electricians were granted
injunctions
against 158 fellow workers at a power station site
at West Pennar, Pembrokeshire. All the plaintiffs
and defendants are members of the Electrical, Elec
tronic and Telecommunications Union-Plumbing
Trades Union.
The 158 men were ordered not to do anything,
whether in combination or not, by intimidation or
otherwise, to procure the dismissal or non-employ
ment of the seven by Connaught Contractors
(Send) Ltd., subcontractors on the site.
It was stated that the seven had complained
that they had been punished by
their fellow
workers for working for Perville Construction Co.
Ltd., which, it was alleged, had operated "the
lump", a system under which men worked as
independent self-employed contractors and ob
tained higher wages than ordinary employees.
[Hutchinson and others v Aitchison and others;
Ch. Div.; Brightman J.;
The Times,
9 July 1970.] »
TRESPASS
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
103