86 / 736
mons by Mr. Philip Rudston de Baer seeking
a stay of execution of an order for possession
of
the property obtained by the London
Permanent Benefit Building Society. Speak
ing of order 45, rule 11, and dealing with
the question of whether the Court had juris
diction to grant a stay of execution on an
order for possession obtained by a
legal
mortgage the judge held that on its true
construction the rule did not confer any
power to grant a stay of execution on such
an order. The power conferred by that rule
was a power to do so "on the ground of
matters which have occurred since the date
of the judgment or order." It was implicit
in the rule that the matters referred to were
matters which would have prevented the order
being made or would have led to a stay of
execution if they had already occurred at
the date of the order.
(London
Permanent Benefit
Building
Society v. De Baer—November 29th, 1967.)
(See Rules of
the Superior Courts 1962
Order 47).
Privity of Contract
Mr. Justice Donaldson decided on two pre
liminary
issues
that
foreign
Plaintiffs,
Teheran-Europe Co. Ltd., carrying on busi
ness in Teheran as importers of machinery
and other goods, were entitled
to claim
damages from the Defendants, S. T. Belton
(Tractors) Ltd. of Boston, Lincolnshire, an
English Company dealing
in government
surplus goods but breach of a contract for
the sale of air compressor units. The Plain
tiffs alleged that the goods when delivered
did not accord with the contract description,
were not of merchantable quality and were
not for the purpose for which they were
supplied.
The former usage of the law merchant that
the foreign principal of an English agent did
not authorise the agent to establish privity
of contract between him and a third party no
longer exists. The most that can now be said
is that in deciding whether privity of con
tract exists between an English supplier and
the foreign principal of an English agent the
fact that the principal is foreign is a factor
to be taken into account.
Teheran-Europe Co. Ltd. v. S. T. Belton
(Tractors) Ltd., Queen's Bench Division—
The Times, 22/12/67).
Breach of Contract
—
Devaluation
Mr. Justice Donaldson described a case in
the Queen's Bench Division which came be
fore him on November 22nd arising from an
award submitting questions of law for the
Court's opinion — as
illustrating both
the
general rule of law and the exception: the
changes in the relative value of currencies
were irrelevant if they occurred after the
date at which damages fell to be assessed
and were usually to be disregarded if they
occurred on or before that date, either be
cause the loss flowing from revaluation had
no casual connection with the breach because
such a loss was not within the assumed con
templation of the parties.
(Aruna Mills Ltd. v. Dharajmal Gobindram
—The Times newspaper, November 23rd,
1967).
Town Planning — Development Plan
Plaintiff had sought a declaration that the
Bray Urban Council had acted ultra vires of
the provisions of
the Local Government
(Planning and Development) Act, 1963, in
amending a draft development plan which
had been approved on May 16th, 1967, at a
meeting on September 26th, 1967; a declara
tion
that
the
resolution of
the Council
adopted on September 26th was null and
void in so far as it amended and adopted
the draft plan, and a declaration that in so
far as the resolution purported to make a
development plan, it was null and void.
The Court granted all the reliefs sought
by the Plaintiff and allowed her the costs of
the proceedings as well as the costs of an
interim and interlocutory injunction already
granted to her restraining the Council from
making a development plan which included
certain provisions in relation to an area not
contained in the draft plan, notice of which
was published on May 27th, 1967.
Mr. Justice Butler stated that it would not
be necessary to continue the injunction al
ready granted as his judgment meant that
the resolution adopted on September 26th
had no effect in relation to the plan and if
the Council decided to proceed with it, it
would not do them any good because the
plan could not bind anybody. He stated that
he was of opinion that the correct interpre
tation of Part 3 of the 1963 Act was that,
before making a plan the planning authority
must first prepare a draft of their proposals;
must give notice of having done so; must
66