197 / 364
members • of the Board only if the applicant is
dissatisfied with the initial decision and asks for a
hearing.
The scheme will be amended
to enable the
single member, where he considers that he cannot
reach a just and proper decision, himself to refer
the application to three other members of the
Board for hearing. To give effect to this alteration
in the procedure, paragraph 17 of the scheme
(full text of which was given in columns 90-94 of
the official reports for 24th June 1964) will be
amended to read as follows:
"17. The initial decision whether the appli
cation should be allowed
(and if so, what
amount of compensation should be offered), or
should be rejected will normally be taken by one
member of the Board, who will communicate
his conclusions to the applicant; if the applicant
is not satisfied with that decision, whether
because no compensation is offered or because
he considers the amount offered to be inade
quate, he will be entitled to a hearing before
three other members of the Board, excluding
the one who made the initial decision. It will,
however, also be open to single member, when
he considers that he cannot reach a just and
proper decision, himself to refer the application
to
three other members of
the Board
for
hearing/' (Public Law, Winter 1965).
HOUSING
(Clearance Area)
Tenement houses are "houses and not other
buildings" within section 42 (i) of the Housing
Act 1957, and if they are unfit for human habi
tation the area can be declared a clearance area
under that section.
Per Curiam:
The "other buildings" referred to
are buildings erected or used primarily for some
purpose other than human habitation.
Slum
landlords
questioned
by
originating
Notice of Motion the validity of a clearance order
on an area of tenement houses unfit for human
habitation, arguing that they were not "houses"
but "other buildings": Held,
that
the appeal
should be dismissed. (Quillotex Co. v. Minister of
Housing and Local Government
(1965)
2 All.
E.R. 913, Salmon L.J. sitting as an additional
judge in the Q.B.D.).
CONTRACT AND FRUSTRATION
On 8th December 1962 the plaintiff, then six
teen years old, entered into an agreement with the
defendants whereby they agreed to employ him.
and he agreed to serve them as drummer in their
band, and to devote the whole of his time and
attention to their business. The contract provided
that the plaintiff might be summarily dismissed
without notice in the event of his committing any
breach of his obligations thereunder. The basis of
the agreement, as the plaintiff knew, was that he
should be available to perform on seven nights a
week and sometimes more than once a night, if
the group had engagements. The work in fact
involved appearing on seven nights a week, some
times twice nightly, and the plaintiff had to live
away from home, and travel from place to place.
The group was not merely a musical band but
gave acting performances, the drummer being a
key figure in the timing. In January 1963
the
plaintiff collapsed and was admitted to a mental
hospital, where he was detained for a few days.
The doctor attending him informed the defen
dants that continuance of such conditions of work
would render the plaintiff liable to a more serious
breakdown than that which had occurred and
that he should not perform on more than four
nights a week. The defendants considered that
owing to the difficulty of obtaining substitutes for
the plaintiff with sufficient reputation, and to the
rehearsing difficulties with their synchronised act,
it would not be possible to employ the plaintiff
for four nights a week only, and they dismissed
him.
In an action by the plaintiff, who considered
that he was fit to perform on seven nights a week,
for damages for wrongful dismissal: Held, that
fitness to perform such a contract required the
ability not only to carry out the work in accor
dance with its
terms but with
the continuity
contemplated by
the contract; and that, since
there was a likelihood that the plaintiff would
suffer damage to his health or another breakdown
within a short time if he continued to work for
the defendants for seven nights a week, it was in a
business sense impossible for him to continue to
perform or for the defendants to have him perform
the
terms of
the contract, and
there was no
wrongful
dismissal.
(Condor
v.
The Barron
Knights Ltd. [1966] 1. W.L.R. p. 87).
CORRESPONDENCE
"Dear Sir,
We take the liberty of drawing to your attention the
British Court of Appeal Case of Hill v. Harris briefly
reported on p. 60 of the issue of
The Irish Law Times
and Solicitors' Journal
dated 5th February 1966.
In this case the sub-lessee under a sub-lease of a shop
permitting same to be used for the business of retail
confectioner and tobacconist, after taking the sub-lease,
and using the premises for these purposes, found himself
prohibited from continuing to use
the premises as a
91