Previous Page  256 / 338 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 256 / 338 Next Page
Page Background

Per Upjohn, L.J. :

In general, no doubt, a

tribunal having judicial functions to perform should

deliberate in public. But there may be good reasons,

either in particular cases or indeed in particular

classes of cases, where justice demands that the

hearing should be in private.

The High Court

sometimes hears cases in private, and examples

have been given by both my Lords, which I need

not repeat.

In this case one can well understand

the reason that may have actuated those responsible

for framing r. 21 :

justice to the solicitor against

whom a complaint is made. One can well understand

how serious it might be if a complaint had to be

deliberated in public and then a period necessarily

elapses while the tribunal has to put its findings into

writing.

In my judgement, this tribunal is entitled to the

benefit of the rule applicable to courts of law and may

claim absolute privilege.

(Addis

v.

Crocker, (1960), 2 All E.R. 629.)

Solicitors apprentice, even though remuneratedat irregular

intervals, is nevertheless "gainfully employed" within the

National Insurance Act

1946

and liablefor contributions:

In order to determine whether a person is within

the class of employed persons in s. i (2)

(a)

of the

National Insurance Act, 1946,

vi%.,

"persons gain

fully occupied in ... employment under a contract

of service" two questions must be decided, namely,

(a)

whether the person is employed under a contract

of service and then (&) whether he is gainfully

occupied, but it is not necessary that the gain should

be derived from the contract of service.

On August 31, 1954, K. entered a solicitor's

employment as an articled clerk. The articles of

clerkship were in the usual form and contained no

provision for any remuneration to the clerk. Before

the articles were drawn up, the solicitor explained

to K. that he would receive no remuneration. At

Christmas, 1954, the solicitor gave £10 to K.,

because he liked K. and because it was Christmas.

At Christmas, 195 5, he gave £25 to K., for the same

reasons. In January, 1956, the solicitor told K that

he was pleased with him and that, in recognition of

his work, he would give him £100 in 1956 which

he was to spend on holidays and not to use for his

general living expenses. It was arranged that K.

should receive the money in four equal payments

when he wanted them, and K. received cheques

for £25 in March, July, September and December,

1956. From Nov. 17, 1956 to July 8, 1957, K. was

absent from the office, with the solicitor's permission,

attending a firm of law tutors. On July 8, 1957, after

successfully completing his examinations, he returned

to the solicitor's office, and continued to work

there until the term of the articles expired on Aug.

30, 1957, being paid £5 a week during this period.

On the question whether K. was included in the class

of employed persons or in the class of non-employed

persons, for the purposes of the National Insurance

Act, 1946, during the period from Jan. i, 1956 to

Dec. 31, 1956, it was not disputed that during that

period K. was employed under a contract of service.

Held, by Salmon J.: K. was included in the class

of employed persons for the purposes of the Act

of 1946, from Jan. i, 1956 to Dec. 31, 1956 because

(i) in the circumstances, the £100 given to K.

during 1956 was intended to be in payment for

services, and was not given to him as a personal

present.

(ii) he was thus a person "gainfully occupied in

employment .

.

. under a contract of service",

within s.i (2)

(a)

of the Act of 1946, although the

contract of service made no provision for payments

to him.

(iii) the fact that a person, when he entered into

his employment had no hope, intention or desire of

obtaining gain was irrelevant, if he was subsequently

paid for his services during the course of his employ

ment, to the question whether he was "gainfully

occupied" for the purposes of the Act.

(Benjamin

v.

Minister of Pensions and of National

Insurance—1960, 2 All E.R. 851).

OBITUARY

Miss ADELAIDE M. QUIN, solicitor, died on the

3ist July, 1960 at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital,

Drogheda, Co. Lough.

Miss Quin served her apprenticeship with the late

Mr. John Quin, Ardee, Co. Louth, was admitted in

Easter Sittings,

1929

and practised at Ardee,

Co. Louth.

DISTRICT JUSTICE TIMOTHY P. COFFEY died on the

4th August, 1960 at Barrington's Hospital, Limerick.

Justice Coffey served his apprenticeship with the

late Mr. John Mackay, Dundalk and

the late

Mr. Patrick J. Kerley, Dundalk, was admitted in

Trinity Sittings, 1916 and practised at Dundalk,

Co. Louth up to his appointment as District Justice

in 1932.

MR. WILLIAM FRANKLIN died on the 4th August,

1960 at Sir Patrick Dun's Hospital, Dublin.

Mr. Franklin served his apprenticeship with the

late Mr. Alfred Lane Joynt, 4 St. Stephen's Green,

Dublin and Mr. Robert E. English, 7 St. Stephen's

Green, Dublin, was

admitted

in Michaelmas

Sittings, 1938 and practised at 24 South Anne

Street, Dublin.

44