64 / 736
rial change
in use
involving development for
which planning permission was
required,
that
planning permission should not be granted, and
that the appeal should be dismissed. The site
owner appealed.
Widgery, L. J., said that the first question was
what was the unit of land to which the test of
'material change' or not should be applied; fol
lowing G. Percy Trenthan, Ltd. v. Gloucester
shire County Council (1966) 1 W.L.R. 506 (C.A.),
it was right to look at the whole premises, not the
building in isolation. The Minister properly an
swered the next question by concluding that the
primary use of the whole premises before the use
complained of was for agriculture including, as
an incident, the provision of facilities for selling
the agriculturist's produce. What had happened
since, and did it amount to a material change?
Although the quantitive change was small, the
Minister was entitled to find that it was a change
in the character of the use to bring on to the land
vegetables and the like for sale; since there was
material on which he could find it was a material
change of use and the change was not de minimis,
everything else was a matter of fact and degree,
the decision was capable of being supported, and
the appeal should be dismissed.
Diplock, L. J., and Lord Parker, C.J., agreed.
Appeal dismissed. (Williams v. Minister of Hous
ing and Local Government and Another, (Vol.
Ill)
Solicitors' Journal
p.559).
Maintenance by a Trade Union
Two full-time salaried officials of a trade union
brought a libel action against a member in respect
of letters written by the member, it implied that
they were unfit to be employed by the union. Their
actions were dismissed and
the member now
sought to restrain the union from using funds to
pay the officials' costs. It was held :—
1. That the union did not commit an offence of
maintenance by supporting the litigation brought
to vindicate its servants' reputation. The right of
a master to support his servant's litigation is an
exception
to
the general
rule prohibiting
the
maintenance of other men's actions and it extends
to an action for libel to protect a servant's repu
tation attacked by reason of acts done by him in
the course of his employment.
2. Notwithstanding the absence of express provi
sion
in
the union rules, there was an implied
power to spend union funds on such litigation..
(Hill v. Archbold, (1967) 1 AER 1038)
Suitable Lighting in Factory
The plaintiff arrived at the defendant's factory
before work began and while crossing the floor
to switch on more lights injured himself by falling
over a tie-bar in the shadow of a piece of unfinis
hed machinery. He claimed damages from his
employers alleging they were in breach of their
statutory duty.
Held :—
1. That the employers were not in breach of an
obligation
to secure and maintain
lighting
in
'every part of a factory in which persons are
working or passing' up to the standards set out in
reg. 2 of the Factories (Standards of Lighting)
Regulations, 1941. dealing with the power requi
red where persons are regularly employed and
para, (b) with all other interior parts of the fac
tory. In this case para, (a) was the relevant pro
vision but did not apply in the circumstances as
work was not in progress when
the accident
occurred and the lighting was adequate for other
purposes.
2. If para, (b) was relevant, the lighting was up
to standard and
the fact
that
the unfinished
machinery cast shadows which temporarily reduce
light did not create a breach of the obligation.
3. Another light switch was much nearer at hand
so that it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to
cross the floor without stronger illumination and
the accident was his own fault.
(Lane v. Gloucester Engineering Co. Ltd. (1967)
2. All E.R. 293.
UNREPORTED IRISH JUDGEMENTS
1.
People (Attorney-General) v. Roger O'Callag-
han.
Appeal from Murnaghan J. refusing bail—appli
cant returned for trial in October, 1966 in Cork—
offences of
larceny committed while on bail—
Attorney-General opposes bail because applicant
might
interfere with witnesses—The Supreme
Court rejects this—object of bail neither punitive
nor preventitive—fundamental
and only
test-
probability of applicant evading justice—previous
record irrelevant—a person should not be de
prived of liberty upon only a belief that he will
commit offences—theory that bail is a privilege
rejected—Appeal allowed—bail of £200 granted.
(4th April, 1967).
2.
McGowan v. Murray.
Claim for damages for conspiracy withdrawn from
Jury by Teevan J.—declaration by plaintiff that
he had been wrongfully expelled by Electrical
Trade Union—conspiracy
to prevent plaintiff
from earning his
living and
to
injure him—
plaintiff took part in unofficial strike in Dromland
Castle in July 1963—plaintiff expelled—executive
committee confirms this—mock trial alleged by
56