232 / 338
the Home Secretary, who claimed Crown privilege,
on the ground of public policy.
In addition to an
application by the plaintiff for the unsealing of the
entries, a subpoena was served on the Director
of
Public Prosecutions
requiring him
to produce
documents in his possession relevant to the action.
Held that, both the detective's notes and the docu
ments
in the possession of the Director were
privileged :
Auten
v.
Rayner
(No. 2),
(1960)
2. W.L.R. 562 ;
(1960) i All E.R. 692 Glyn-Jones, J.
Discovery—Information within knowledge of
firm employed by plaintiff.
(Can.)
In Canadian
Utilities
v.
Mannix and London Guarantee &
Accident Co. (1959) 20 D.L.R. (ad) 654, the Alberta
Supreme Court held that information within the
knowledge of an engineering »firm which
the
plaintiff had hired to draw up plans for a dam and to
supervise its construction must be disclosed.
Agency — commission — introduction of person
prepared to enter into a contract.
In Ackroyd &
Sons
v.
Hasan (April 12, 1960) estate agents were
instructed by the defendant to sell her premises. In
confirming the agreement, the estate agents wrote
" in the event of our introduction of a party prepared
to enter into a contract to purchase .
.
. you will
allow us commission." The estate agents introduced
a prospective purchaser prepared 'to enter into a
binding contract, but before contracts were ex
changed, negotiations broke down and the sale was
never completed.
Th
e Court of Appeal (Sellers
Ormerod and Upjohn,
L.JJ.), dismissing an appeal
from Winn J. (1959) C.L.Y. 14), held that the
estate agents were not entitled to their commission.
(D. C.)
The Times,
April 29, 1960.
Infants, Children and Young Persons—abduction
—contempt.
In Bottomley
v.
Bottomley (April 26,
1960) the husband had been guilty of contempt by
kidnapping the child of the parties in breach of a
perpetual injunction not to molest the child. The
wife had custody and the marriage had been dis
solved. As the whereabouts of husband and child
were unknown, and it was feared that the husband
might take the child to Ireland, application for his
committal was made
exparte.
Stevenson, J., made
an order for his committal (J. B. G.)
The Times,
April 27, 1960.
Malicious Prosecution and False Imprisonment—
malicious prosecution.
In McKay
v.
Attorney-
General (March 31,
1960) plaintiffs brought an
action against the Attorney-General and two police
officers. for malicious prosecution,
trespass and
unlawful detention of their goods, negligence,
alternatively for conspiracy, and libel. The action
arose out of charges preferred against the plaintiffs
under the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934. McNair,
J. held, dismissing the action, that the plaintiffs
had failed to prove their case. (D.C.)
The Times,
April i, 1960.
Medical practitioner — failure
to arrange for
telephone messages.
In Corder
v.
Banks (April 8,
1960), McNair, J., held that a plastic surgeon who
performed an operation on a patient's eyelids, who
allowed his patient to go home after the operation,
and who failed to make proper arrangements for
receiving telephone messages from the patient in the
event of bleeding taking place during the first
forty-eight hours after the operation, was thereby
guilty of professional negligence.
(D.C.) See also
The Times,
April 9, 1960.
Tort—conspiracy. In Auten
v.
R.iyner (April 28,
1960) A. brought two actions :
the first against
R. and Mrs. R. and a detective-sergeant of the
Metropolitan and City Fraud Department
for
damages for conspiracy to cheat and injure him,
malicious prosecution and
false
imprisonment,
malicious
institution of civil proceedings and
injurious falsehoods ;
the second against a firm of
accountants and one of their employees for damages
for conspiracy to cheat and injure him and for breach
of duty as his accountants. Glyn-Jones, J., held that
A. had failed to prove his case in both of the two,
consolidated, actions.
(D.C.)
The Times,
April 29,
1960.
Trade Unions—exclusion of member—proceed
ings against member—contravention of union rule;,.
In Payne
v.
Electrical Trades Union (April 13, 1960)
a union purported to exclude a member from
membership of the union.
In an action by the
member, for a declaration that he was still a member
of the union, Ashworth, J., held, giving judgment
for the member, that in the proceedings against the
member the union had committed serious contra
ventions of the union rules, for which no satisfactory
explanation had been offered, and that the member's
purported exclusion was accordingly null and void.
(D.C.) See also
The Times,
April 14, 1960.
20