621 / 736
ferred by the Acts and was
ultra vires,
invalid and of no
effect.
The case arose out of proceedings brought by the
Dunraven Limerick Estates Company against the Com
missioners, and in his judgment in March 1970,
the
President of the High Court also made a similar finding
in relation to the notices given and served on the Dun-
raven Limerick Estates Company.
The Chief Justice, in his judgment, said that the appeal
was concerned with two questions — whether the scheme
showed what the Act said it should show, and whether
the notice served contained the information which the
Act says such notice should contain. The President
had found
that
in both respects
the Commissioners
were in default.
The plaintiff's complaint was that the terms of the
notice served were so general as to render it impossible
for them to offer observations in regard to interference.
What the scheme must show was stated clearly in
Section 4 (1) of the Act. The words (discarding non-
essentials) were "the drainage scheme — shall show —
the essentials — and other rights proposed to be inter
fered with."
Selecting the category "construction of weirs other
than mill weirs," the Chief Justice said the owners were
told "if and as required new weirs will be constructed
at points indicated on the map." In fact, this did not
tell the owner what rights it was proposed to interfere
with.
The formula "if and as required'" was inserted to give
the Commissioners a completely free hand; it might be
all or nought or any number in between. The Com
missioners had 10 options under that formula.
Tt was the duty of the Commissioners under the Act
to make up their minds on the best advice available as
to what and how many weirs were required and what
and how many existing weirs were to be removed. This
information should go into the scheme.
The formula "if and as required" far from being
inocuous, as counsel for the Commissioners had sub
mitted, was a basic and fatal infirmity. It was a mode of
saying "we don't know," or "we won't tell you."
The Commissioners had sought to excuse the use of
the formula hy saying it was employed in the interest
of landowners and in a desire
to
leave
the scheme
flexible so that the Commissioners could as much as
possible, consult the wishes of the owners. This, in his
opinion, disclosed a failure to appreciate the structure
of the Statute.
The Chief Justice said he would affirm the order of
the President but he saw no objection to limiting the
declaration of invalidity to such parts of the scheme as
referred to
the Dunraven Estate and
to
that extent
he would modify the President's order.
In a separate judgment, Mr. Justice Budd also con
cluded that the scheme and notices were not in con
formity with the provisions of the Act. He agreed there
would seem to be no objection to limiting the declar
ations of invalidity to such parts as referred to
the
Dunraven Estate.
Mr. Justice Walsh agreed with the judgment of the
Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Budd.
[Irish Independent,
23 December, 1970.]
Family
The court has jurisdiction under section
1
of the
Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, to order a husband, the
tenant of the matrimonial home, to leave the home for
a
time where the wife has obtained against him an
order for persistent cruelty containing a non-cohabit
ation clause.
[Tarr v. Tarr. Court of Appeal.
The Times,
16 Decem
ber. 1970.]
Gaming and Lotteries
Football pools competitions linked with a charity for
the benefit of cancer research and treatment, in which
99 per cent of the participants in any week did not
bother to make any forecast "as to sporting or other
events" were held to be unlawful
lotteries under the
Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, because no
element of skill was involved in their participation; and
thought 1 per cent exercised an option under the rules to
make their own forecast of football results, the option
was merely collateral and did not alter the character of
the competition as an illegal lottery.
[Singette Ltd & Others v. Martin. House of Lords.
The Times,
26 November, 1970.]
Insurance
A motor car which was lent by a member of Clacton-
on-Sea Urban District Council to the council to take
French guests to Heathrow Airport and which was in
an accident when it was being driven back by the clerk
to the council was covered by an insurance policy cover
ing only use for "social, domestic and pleasure purposes
and use for business of the insured." The guests were
from Valence, with which Clacton is twinned.
The insurance company, Iron Trades Mutual Insur
ance Ltd., had repudiated liability on the ground that
the car was being used otherwise than in accordance
with the terms of the policy.
[D. H. R. Moody (Chemists) Ltd. v.
Iron Traders
Mutual Insurance Co. Ltd. Wraugham, J.
The Times,
11 November, 1970.]
Landlord & Tenant
"Possession" of the holding, in section 30(1) (f) of the
Landlord and Tenant Act
1954, was held
to mean
physical and not legal possession. The subsection pro
vides that one ground on which a landlord may oppose
a tenant's application for a new tenancy of business
premises is "that on
the
termination of the current
tenancy the landlord intends to demolish or reconstruct
the premises comprised in the holding or a substantial
part of those premises or to carry out substantial work
of construction on the holding or part thereof and that
he could not reasonably do so without obtaining possess
ion of the holding."
[Heath v. Drown. Court of Appeal.
The Times
19
November, 1970.]
Local Government
A private hire car displaying a roof sign with a tele
phone number did not contravene section 4(1) (b) of the
161