The Gazette 1964/67

176 / 364

In Chaplin v Leslie Frevvin (Publishers) Ltd.,
and Another, the plaintiff who was nineteen, had
signed a contract giving the publishers the ex
clusive rights during the period of coypright of
publishing his autobiography. Later he sought
to avoid the contract on the ground that he was
an infant and that it was not for his benefit as it
was detrimental to his reputation and liable to
expose him to actions for defamation. He applied
for an interlocutory injunction to restrain them
from publishing it on the ground that the copy
right was still vested in him.
It was held (Court of A Lord Denning
M.R., Danckwerts and Winn L.JJ.) that the grant
of the injunction should be refused (though the
publishers afterwards undertook not to publish
the book pending an appeal to the House of
Lords). The contract constituted an assignment
of copyright in a future work for the purpose of
s.37 (1) of the Act of 1956, and (Lord Denning
M.R., dissenting on this point) the assignment
could not be revoked, whether or not the contract
as a whole was for the benefit of the infant. A
contract made in good faith could not be avoided
because it turned out that the benefits were not
as great as expected. (1965) 3 all E.R. 764.
Section 37 of the English Act, deals with pro
spective ownership of copyright, similar provisions
appear in the Irish Copyright Act of 1963.
Provision for Dependants
By s.2 (1A) (c) of the Inheritance (Family
Provision) Act, 1938, as amended, the Court has
power to extend the time for application for
maintenance by a dependant where the six-month
limitation period "would operate unfairly ....
in consequence of some .... circumstances af
fecting the administration or distribution of the
estate,'' but there is no jurisdiction to extend the
time where the delay is due to extraneous causes
(see Halsbury; Statutes 32, 142; Laws 16, 485).
In K. Henry Kay (deceased), K. V. West, the
plaintiff applied for provision to be made out of
her deceased husband's net estate under the 1938
Act, as amended, and for the period in which she
could so apply to be extended. The originating
summons had been issued one day out of time,
partly due to inadvertence of her solicitors and
partly due to a Post Office work to rule.
It was held (Ch. D.; Russell L.J., sitting as an
additional judge; July 9th, 1965), relying on
Greaves (deceased), (Greaves v Greaves [1954]
2 All. E.R. 109), dismissed the claim, on the
ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to
extend the time because neither the lack of dilig
ence of the post office, nor that of her solicitors
were "circumstances affecting the administration
or distribution of the estate" within s.2 (1A) (c)
of the Act of 1938. The limitation period had
operated unfairly because of these extraneous cir
cumstances and not in consequence of "circum
stances affecting the administration or distribu
tion of the estate." (1965) 3 all. E.R. 724.
Caravan Site—Condition in Licence
In Esdell Caravan Parks, Ltd. v Hemel, Hamp-
stead Rural District Council, the local authority
appealed against a decision of the Divisional
Court (reported at [1965] 2 All. E.R. mil) that
the Justices were not entitled in law to hold, on
the facts set out in the case stated, that a condi
tion limiting the number of caravans which could
be kept on a site under a caravan site licence
issued to the respondent company by the appell
ant's local authority (acting as the site licencing
authority) was not unduly burdensome and that
the local authority had not acted ultra vires in
imposing that condition.
The site which was let to the respondent com
pany in June, 1962 for twenty-one years had
been regularly used as a caravan site for some
years before the Town and Country Planning
Act, 1947 came into force, and had been the
subject of deemed planning permission, unre
stricted to any particular number of caravans,
under section 17 (3) of the Caravan Sites of
Control and Development Act, 1960. A site
licence issued to the company in July, 1964 by
the Site Licencing Authority restricted the num
ber of caravans on the site to twenty-four.
It was he A.; Lord Denning M.R., Hannen
and Winn, ; November 4th, 1965) that the
site licencing authority had jurisdiction under
s.5 (1) (a) of the Act of 1960 to impose a
condition restricting the number of caravans on
a site (the Minister for Housing and Local Gov
ernment v Hartnell [1965] 1 All. E.R. 490 dis
tinguished); and that in determining whether a
particular condition was unduly burdensome was
a question of fact not law. Factors that were
solely planning factors (e.g., that the land con
cerned was green belt land) should not be taken
into account, though other relevant considerations
of public health, public service, etc., might
properly be considered. (1955) 3 All. E.R. 737.
Solicitor Acting as Principal
The defendant and the plaintiff attended at
the office of the solicitor for the defendant on
70