101 / 324
A booklet containing the text of these regulations
with a commentary and explanatory notes has been
prepared by direction of the Council for circulation
to all practising solicitors. The Professional Practice
Conduct and Disciplinary Regulations came into
operation on ist October, 1955.
The Solicitors'
Accounts Regulations will come into operation on
i st January, 1957.
DECISIONS OF
PROFESSIONAL INTEREST.
Waiver ofprivilege in case where witness is cross-examined
on statement signed by him and made to other party.
A witness for a plaintiff had made a statement to
the defendant before the hearing of the case. At
the hearing the witness was cross-examined by
counsel for the defence. Counsel had in his hand a
written statement. He asked the witness whether
he had made a statement to defendant and signed it.
The witness admitted that he had and, in answer
to a further question, admitted that he had stated
certain facts in it. Has any privilege attached to
such document beeri waived by the cross-examination
so as to entitle the plaintiff's counsel to see the
whole document?
Yes, said
the Court of Appeal (Denning, Hodson
and Morris,
L.JJ.) affirming the ruling of Sellers, J.
Denning, L. J., said that where a document was
used by cross-examining counsel in this way, he
waived the privilege, certainly for that part which
was used ; and in a case of this kind if the privilege
is waived as to part, it must be waived as to the
whole.
It would be unfair that cross-examining
counsel should use the part which was to his
advantage and not allow anyone, even the judge or
opposing counsel, to see the rest of the document,
much of which might have been against him.
(Burnell
v.
British
Transport Commission
(1955).
3
A//E.R.
822.)
Private car usedfor carriage ofgoods for trade or business
is a goods vehicle and subject to higher rate of duty.
A company director, who was the owner of a
Standard Vanguard
shooting brake, used
the
vehicle for the conveyance of cameras and other
photographic equipment in connection with the
company's business of photographic printers and
freelance photographers. The vehicle was taxed as
a private vehicle and no goods licence in respect of it
had been obtained. The director was accordingly
charged with offences under the Road Traffic Act,
I 933> s. i (in respect of the user without a goods
licence), the Road Traffic Act, 1930, s. 35 (third
party insurance), and the Vehicles (Excise) Act,
T 949> s. 13 (tax). Should he have been convicted ?
Yes, said a Divisional Court (Lord Goddard,
L.C.J., Hilbery and Stable, J. J.). The vehicle was
a goods vehicle as denned by sect. 27 (i) of the 1949
Act and was not within the exemption allowed by
sect. 7 (2) of the Finance Act, 1952 (which applies
where the vehicle is not used
(inter alia)
for or
in connection with a trade or business).
Per Lord Goddard, C.J. :—Therefore, the position
is quite clear. These estate car delivery vans are
constructed in such a manner that they can be
goods vehicles. Being goods vehicles, they would
attract the higher rate of duty if they are either
used for the conveyance of goods or burden for
hire or reward or if they are used for the carrying
of goods in connection with a trade or business.
If a person has one of these vans and he carries in
it nothing except his own luggage, or his own farm
produce for his own use and nothing which has
to do with his trade or business, he is committing
no offence if he licenses it and keeps it licensed at
what one may call the private car rate. However,
if he does carry goods, that is to say, as it seems to
me, anything in connection with his trade or
business, at once it becomes a goods vehicle and
has to bear the higher rate. (Query would these
considerations apply to a vehicle in which a solicitor
carries client's papers or a barrister carrying his
wig and gown on Circuit?)
(Toy/or V. Thompson
(1956) i
A//E.K.
352.)
Land belonging to Irish Company in England ordinarily
forfeited to Crown unless it held a licence under the
Mortmain Acts need not be maintained by the Cromi
until it takes steps to enforce the forfeiture.
In 1862, land in Hammersmith was demised for a
term of 99 years from 1858. Title to the leasehold
interest was registered at the Land Registry with
a good leasehold interest in 1917.
In February
1953 the leasehold interest was assigned by registered
disposition to Arffe, Ltd., for valuable consideration.
Arffe, Ltd., was a company incorporated in the
Republic of Ireland having its registered office in
Dublin.
Arffe, Ltd., had not delivered to the
Registrar of Companies any documents for regis
tration under Part 10 of the Companies Act, 1948,
and consequently it had not the power to hold
land which an oversea company can acquire under
that Part of that Act, nor had it been granted a
licence to hold land in mortmain. The Crown had
taken no step towards enforcing any forfeiture of
the land leased and had not entered on it under the
Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888, s.i.
Held by the House of Lords :
(Lords Jowitt,
Porter, MacDermott and Cohen, Lord Morton of
Henryton dissenting) reversing the Court of Appeal
that the assignment to Arffe, Ltd., did not cause an
automatic forfeiture of the unexpired residue of