The Gazette 1974

that planning permission was granted upon evidence

°t contained in the Report, in violation of the plaintiff's

right to have tests carried out on his own account if

cessary. The plaintiff claims that the order of 21

September 1971 is

ultra vires

inasmuch as it disregards

He principles of constitutional and natural justice.

The defendants had the audacity to contend that, as

He plaintiff was not a party to the hearing by the

Hspector, he could not maintain this action. In view of

He fact that the plaintiff had taken such an active part

the proceedings from the start, his position at the

f a r i ng was indistinguishable from that of a defendant

a civil proceeding who prevented a plaintiff from

^covering in the action. Accordingly Mr. Law's parti-

cipation in these event" and his interest as a resident

preventing septic tanks from being used near his

H>use, gives him a legal right to have that interest

Protected.

It was also contended by the defendants that the

Plaintiff has no legal right to sue, for the purpose of

tablishing that the planning authority has erred in

matter of legal procedure, as the right to enforce

Provisions of the planning legislation is exclusively

jested in the planning authority. But here the plaintiff

s shown a right in law springing from the appeal

hearing procedure, which he says has been infringed by

He wrongful act of the Council in granting permission

this has damaged him. The plaintiff has a perfect

to make this claim.

The Minister's decision must have been based not

jy on the report but also on additional material. The

Minister's decision is accordingly vitiated by irregul-

ari

ty. Accordingly the order of the County Council of

H September 1971 is void. Costs awarded against both

P e n d a n t s.

. [Law v. Minister for Local Government and Tradi-

tional Homes Ltd.; Deale J.; unreported; 27 May 1974.]

a Vendor and Purchaser contract, clauses which

are for the benefit of one of the parties only, may

be severed from the rest of the contract, and that

party may waive performances and insist on com-

pletion

Plaintiff agrees to sell lands in Ballymorris, Bray, for

M>7,350 in March 1972 to defendant and signs a

itten contract as prepared by the Law Society, but

tie gate lodge was excluded. A deposit of only £2,000

paid and the completion was subject to the pur-

chaser obtaining full planning permission for residential

P^velopment of not less than 17 houses per acre within

' months of the contract. If the planning permission

No Change in Search

Glasgow magistrates yesterday refused to give the

Mice powers to stop and search anyone suspected of

Car

rying an offensive weapon.

By 8-5 the magistrates rejected the recommendation

a joint sub-committee that they should seek a meet-

Hg with the Secretary of State for Scotland to discuss

He advisability of amending the Prevention of Grime

> 1953, relating to the carrying of offensive weapons.

This committee was formed following observations

Hade at a sitting of Glasgow High Court by Lord

meron some time ago. He said that in the vast

Hajority of cases concerning assaults that came before

tie courts there was a use of offensive weapons.

is not obtained within that period, the contract would

terminate, save that £100 would be deducted for each

month's delay beyond date of determination. The de-

posit of £2,000 was paid to Ansbacher in the joint

names of the Solicitors for the Vendor and the Pur-

chaser, with provision for a further payment of £2,000

if planning permission is obtained within 8 months of

the signing of the contract. The closing is to take place

within two months of the purchaser receiving notifica-

tion that full planning permission has been granted, and

the balance of £57,360 is to be paid in respect of the

property which is then to be handed over. The balance

of the property and of the purchase money is to be

handed over within six months of that date. In August

1973 solicitors for defendants wrote to plaintiffs that

full planning permission had not yet been obtained but

that the purchaser was nevertheless prepared to treat

the contract as absolute, and that completion should

take place within two months from then. The plaintiff's

solicitors refused to accept these terms, and pleaded

that the contract had determined, as 17 months had

elapsed from signature. Accordingly the plaintiff issued

a Summons under the Vendor and Purchaser Act 1874

to determine this. Per Kenny J. "On principle it seems

to me that when a clause in a contract (whether it is

a condition or a term) is inserted solely for the benefit

of one party, and is severable from the other clauses

when the other party on completion will get everything

that he contracted for, then the party for whose benefit

the clause was inserted may waive performance of the

clause, and insist on completion, despite the non-per-

formance of the condition or term."

The provision that the planning permission was to

be obtained by the defendant indicated that he was the

person whom the parties contemplated would apply for

it, who would prepare the necessary plans, and would

undertake the development. If the defendant completes

the sale the plaintiff gets everything she stipulated for,

because her interest is in getting payment of the pur-

chase money. The contract was void for uncertainty,

because the date for completion was to be calculated

by reference to the grant of full planning permission,

and could not be determined otherwise. With doubt

Kenny J. held that the defendant's offer to complete

despite the absence of planning permission made part

of the contract severable. The severable clauses were

solely for the benefit of the defendant who may waive

them, and insist on completion.

Accordingly the contract did not determine and the

summons must be dismissed.

[Nora Healy v. Daniel Healy; Kenny J.; unreported;

3 December 1973]

Law Ruling

Bailie Albert Long said after the decision: "We

should not allow ourselves to be panicked by what to

me are publicity statements by Lord Cameron."

As the law stands police can stop and search people

thought to be carrying firearms, drugs, poaching equip-

ment or stolen goods, but they cannot search them for

offensive weapons.

Balie Gerald McGrath, senior magistrate, said that

the use of weapons in crimes was very much on the

increase and the magistrates would be failing in their

duty if they did not take account of what Lord Cameron

had said.

175