657 / 736
was
secretary
and manager,
legal
affairs,
to
the
Malaysia-Singapore Airlines Ltd. was in admissible.
The court also
found that the applicant had not
discharged the burden of proof required of him that
"the request for his return ... is in fact made for the
purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account
of his ... political opinions" (Section4)
(1)
(b) or
that "he might, if returned ... be detained or restricted
... by reason of his political opinions'' (section 1).
[In Re Fernandez—Court of Appeal—
T/ie Times
—6
Ferbuary 1971.]
It
is not proper
to
impose a suspended sentence,
whether consecutive or concurrent, when a
borstal
training order
is
already
in
force. The object of
sentencing
to
borstal
training was
to
reform and
rehabilitate, and until one had undergone the borstal
training it could not be said that a deterrent was needed
against committing a crime in the future.
[Regina v Baker—Court of Appeal—
The Times—
26
January 1971.]
An Act passed in 1970 to impose minimum sentences
of imprisonment for certain offences "during the period
of the present emergency" was held by a majority of
the House of Lords
to have
taken away the courts'
power to order suspended sentences for young offenders
which was conferred for the first time by the Treatment
of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, leaving as
the only relief for such persons the exercise of the royal
prerogative.
[Kennedy v Spratt—House of Lords—
The Times
—5
February 1971.]
Damages
In exceptional cases interest on general damages for
pain, suffering and loss of amenities negligently caused
may be awarded from a date not earlier than service or
issue of the writ in an action but even earlier than a
letter before action. Mr.
Justice Mars-Jones stated.
Exceptional
cases would
include
those where
the
plaintiff had not issued proceedings earlier because he
was
suffering under
an
incapacity or where
the
defendant had fraudulently concealed facts on which
the cause of action might be based.
[Chadwick v Parsons—Queen's Bench Division—
The
Times—
27 January 1971.]
Small Award Adequate
Jury awards £890 for personal injuries—Plaintiff of
29 suffered damage to his right index finger from a
blow of a crowbar in Ardee—Te resumed work 16 weeks
after the accident at his pre-accident wages; his loss of
wages amounted
to £120. The general damages of
£750 was held bv a majority of the Supreme Court
(Haugh, Walsh, Budd and Fitzgerald J.J.) not to be
so low as to be inadequate, as collective view of fury
is preferable to
that of an
individual party, and no
objection had been made to High Court Judge's charge.
The Chief justice, dissenting, would have allowed the
appeal, as the award does not fairly reflect the extent
of the lack of amenity which the plaintiff suffers, and
of his future disability as a farm labourer.
[Murphy v Filgate—Supreme Court—Unreported—
5 July 1966.]
Diplomatic Privilege
An
Indian
nuclear
physicist with Costa Rican
diplomatic passport and a
letter of credence to
the
effect that he was to be identified as economic adviser
to Cost Rica in special mission was not entitled
to
diplomatic privilege and
immunity
from arrest
for
extradition to India on criminal charges of breach of
trust, forgery and falsification of accounts
involving
nearly £lm.
[Hegina v Governor of Pentonville Prison and others
ex parte
Teja—Queen's Bench Division—
The Times—
20 January 1971.
EASEMENT
Infringement of
Right
to Light
Defendants,
in
reconstructing
their premises, were
alleged to
infringe plaintiff's right of support to his
premises, which subsided. Defendants are also alleged
to have caused physical damage, and, by raising the
height of their premises, to have obstructed the pre
scriptive right to light of the plaintiff. The premises
concerned are held under a fee farm grant in Carlow.
Teevan J. was satisfied that the earlier alterations were
calculated
to diminish
the support of the
individual
buildings. The root cause of the cracking complained
of should be traced to the 1970 alteration. The damage
caused to the plaintiff's kitchen, assessed at £59, was
caused by water following disconnection by defendants
of a waste pipe. The claim for diminution of light arises
from the reconstruction of a wall. Physically the old
wall
stood
entirely
on
plaintiff's
property^
and
defendants had by user and acquiesence acquired the
right to use this wall as one of the side walls of their
extended
premises.
The
plaintiff
permitted
the
defendants to proceed with their building without pro
test, save as to its height. Consequenly there was no
trespass. It was agreed that the new wall would not
exceed the average height of the old wall. The excess
height is therefore in violation of the agreement come
to between the parties. As regards diminution of light,
there is no doubt but that the plaintiff's rooms were
very poorlv lighted by daylight before the, defendant's
reconstruction. But a further diminution of light has
been caused by the increased height of the side and
rear walls; here the defendants proceeded with
their
building to
the heights,
in excess of agreement, and
even in the face of timely warning. This is not however
a case for an injunction, but for damages, as the plain
tiff has benefited
considerably by
the new walls.
Damages were assessed at £750 subject to the defendants
being allowed to abate the nuisance, in which case the
damages would be diminished. Accordingly
judgment
was awarded to the plaintiffs for £981 with liberty to
either party to apply in relation to outstanding matters.
[Byrne v Dunnes Stores (Waterford Ltd.—Teevan J.
—Unreported—1 July 1968.]
197