26 / 364
Passed:
John G. Black, B.C.L., William M. Cahir,
Arthur F. Callanan, Michael G. Daly, B.C.L., LL.B.,
Thomas W. Enright, Joseph G. Finnegan, John B.
Harte, Michael B. Hegarty, Donnchadh D. Lehane,
Thomas A. Menton, Robert T. R. McDowell,
Josephine M. E. O'Meara, Eleanor A. O'Rourke,
Mary Raleigh, B.A., John J. Rochford, John R.
Sweeney.
25 candidates attended ; 17 passed.
CASES
OF THE MONTH
Practice
Parties—adding defendants.
In Fire, Auto & Marine Insurance Co.
v.
Greene
(1964), D was a motorist insured by P. D was in–
volved in an accident in which TP suffered injuries.
TP claimed damages from D. P claimed a declaration
against D that P was entitled to avoid the policy
for nondisclosure or mispresentation and, in accord–
ance with s. 207 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960
P served notice of their action on TP, who thereupon
became entitled to be made a party to P's action, but
failed to exercise this right. Under an agreement with
the Minister of Transport, the Motor Insurers'
Bureau (MIB) would become liable to satisfy any
judgment obtained by TP if it were not satisfied
by D or P. When sued by third parties, it was not the
practice for MIB to take the point that such parties
were not privy to the agreement between MIB and
the Minister. MIB applied to be joined as a defendant
in the action by P against D. Held, that the court
had no power under Rules of Court to add MIB as a
defendant.
Stamp Duty on Share Deal.
In William Cory & Sons Ltd.
v.
Commissioners of
Inland Revenue (Denning, M.R., Danckwerts, L.J.,
Diplock, L.J. dissenting). An appeal against the
decision of Mr. Justice Pennycuick on December jth,
1963, who had held that 89 transfers of shares were
not liable to
ad valorem
stamp duty as transfers on sale,
under Section i and the ist Schedule of the Stamp
Act, 1891 was allowed.
In August 1957 Cory's agreed in principle to
purchase the issued share capital of the Palmer
Group of Companies. In October, shortly before the
completion of the final draft of the agreement, Cory's
intimated that they " were not prepared to do more
than have an option and that, if the vendors would
not give it to them, the deal was off." On November
ist the Palmer Group granted an option to purchase
for £420,856 and executed 89 transfers of the shares
to Cory's. The agreement provided for retransfer if
the option was not exercised.
On November 2nd the option agreement and
transfers were presented for stamping at £2 and ics.
each respectively on the basis that they had been
made for the protection of the option rights and fell
under " Conveyance or Transfer of any kind not
hereinbefore described " in the ist Schedule to the
Act. The Controller of Stamps directed that they be
stamped with
ad valorem
duty on £420,856 in that
they were transfers on sale.
The Master of the Rolls said that when the trans–
fers were executed they were intended to effect a sale
and were intended to operate on a sale. When the
option was exercised the transfer did in fact effect a
sale. They were therefore transfers on sale and liable
to
ad valorem
duty. Danckwerts, L.J. delivered a
concurring judgment.
Lord Justice Diplock, dissenting, said that he was
reluctantly driven to
the conclusion that these
instruments of transfer were not transfers " on sale".
They transferred the legal property in the shares but
not " on the sale thereof " nor to " a purchaser or
any other person on his behalf or on his direction".
They were therefore liable to a fixed duty of IDS.
and not to
ad valorem
duty.
Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted.
(The Times, Friday, June 26th, 1964.)
[See
Gazette, ]\ine
1964, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 15,16.]
Motor Insurers' Bureau. Injury by criminal act.
The plaintiff, the chief security officer of a big metal
company, saw a van in a car park near the company's
premises on the windscreen of which there was a road
fund licence which had been stolen from one of the
company's cars. He later stopped the car, which was
being driven by P, an employee of the company, on a
private road about ten yards from the main road.
Standing by the van with one hand on the jamb, one
hand on the top of the door and his head and
shoulders inside, he asked P to pull into the near side
of the road ; but P immediately drove off at a fast
speed, dragging the plaintiff out into the main road
and injuring him. P was convicted of larceny of the
road fund licence, of driving a motor vehicle whilst
uninsured and of maliciously inflicting grievous
bodily harm on the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained
judgment against P for damages for personal
injuries, but that judgment was not satisfied. The
plaintiff then sued the defendants claiming under
their agreement, dated June I7th, 1946, with the
Minister of Transport which extended
to any
judgment " required to be covered by a policy of
insurance " under Part 6 of the Road Traffic Act,
1960, for the amount of the unsatisfied judgment
against P and obtained judgment. On appeal the
defendants contended
that P's
liability
to
the
plaintiffwas a liability for the consequences of his own
wilful and deliberate criminal act and was not
22