658 / 736
Evidence
See
In re
Fernendez; Court of Appeal;
The Times;
6 February 1071.
A new trial was ordered in an action by a girl, now
aged 15, who was injured in a road accident in 1960.
Their Lordships Lord Justice Davies dissenting, allowed
an appeal by Susan Ford (suing by her next friend)
of
Newport,
Gloucestershire,
from
the
dismissal
, by Mr. .Justice Veale at Gloucester last July, of her
claim for damages for injuries she received when a van
driven
by
the
defendant, Mr. William
Lewis,
collided with her when she was walking home with
her parents along the A38 road one dark and misty
night in March, 1960. Mr. Lewis, now a patient at a
mental hospital
in Glamorgan was defended by his
guardian ad litem.
The infant plaintiff appealed on the ground that the
trial judge had wrongly exercised his discretion to admit
in evidence hospital records relating to her father, and
a statement made bv
the defendant setting out his
version of
the accident
although
the circumstances
under which the statement was produced did not satisfy
the requirements of section 2(1) of the Civil Evidence
Act. 1968, no notice having been given to the plaintiff's
legal advisers as required by Order 38, rules 21, 22 and
23 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
[Ford v Lewis—Court of Appeal—
The Times—
27
January 1971.]
Family
A leasehold house which had been bought and mort
gaged in the joint names of husband and wife and a
third party was held to be the wife's sole property after
the marriage had been dissolved because the wife had
paid the initial deposit and costs out of her own money,
and had thereafter run the house as a "self-supporting
asset'' so that her former husband had no claim to a
beneficial interest in it.
[Grzeczkowski v Jedynska and another—Court of
Appeal—
The Times—
19 January 1971.]
The fact that Sikh
s\r\
of 17 had married a Sikh in an
arranged marriage because of obedience to her parents'
wishes and out of a proper sense of duty was held not
to be sufficient to vitiate her consent.
[Singh v Singh—Court of Appeal—
The Times—
2
February 1917.] '
An order that a party to a matrimonial dispute should
be turned out of his or her own house is so drastic that
it should never be made unless it has been proved that
it is completely impossible for the spouses to live to
gether in peace in the same house.
[H. v H.—Court of Appeal—
The Times—
20 January
1971.]
Landlord and Tenant
A provision in a periodic tenancy agreement that the
landlords should not terminate it until they required
the premises for the purposes of their undertaking was
held to be valid.
[Charles Clay & Sons Ltd. v British Railways Board
—Court of Appeal—
The Times—
25 January 1971.]
A tenant's application for the grant of a new tenancy
of business premises under section 24 (1) of the Land
lord and Tenant Act, 1954. which did not state thf
proposed rent or conditions of tenancy was held not to be
a nullity and should not have been struck out. The
application in the present case gave full particulars of
the current tenancy but asked for the renewal of the
tenancy "for a period of five or seven years at a rent
to be agreed upon or to be decided by the court."
[Williams v Hillcroft Garage Ltd.—Court of Appeal
—
The Times
—27 January 1971.]
NATURAL LAW
Dismissal of complaint against Unregistered Dentist
unjustified
District Justice dismisses complaint that defendant,
not being a registered dentist, had practised dentistrv.
Case stated to High Court as to whether he was justified
Under Dentists Act
1928,
the Dental Board onlv
registers
persons who
are
suitably
qualified. The
defendant is a dental mechanic, who provided a dental
inspector with a set of dentures having first fitted him.
The Justice took the view that the inspector was an
accomplice whose evidence could not be accepted. There
is however no
rule of law that
the uncorroborated
evidence of an accomplice must be rejected. There the
requirements as to corroboration in the case of a true
accomplice do not apply in the case of a person acting
in the course of his duty for the purpose of obtaining
evidence of an illegal transaction, this Drinrio'e aonlies
to statutory bodies as well as
to police officers. Here
the private and clandestine nature of the transactions
makes it difficult to obtain sufficient evidence to secure a
conviction save in acting as an agent provocateur. The
case will be remitted to the District Justice to deal with
according to law.
[Dental Board v O'Callaghan—Unreported—Butler J.
—31 January 1969.]
NEGLIGENCE
The Judicial Committee held that a girl, born without
arms and with defective evesight in New South Wales,
who claimed that the disabilities were due to her mother
having
taken
a
preparation manufactured
by
the
Distillers Company
(Bio-chemicals) Ltd., an English
company, had a cause of action which arose within the
jurisdiction of the New South Wales court. The prepara
tion. Distival. which contained
thalidomide. was sold
by another company in Australia, where Distillers did
not carry on business.
[Distillers Company (Bio-Chemicals) v Thompson—
Privy Council—
The Times—
20 January 1971.]
198