95 / 364
repeated in the 1962 Rules.
The matter is of
importance when judgment is given for a large
amount where delay may postpone the date from
which interest is to run.
The remedy, however,
appears to lie in the provisions of Order 42, Rule 15
of the 1962 Rules which concluded with the words
"unless the judgment otherwise directs". It would
therefore appear to be advisable to instruct counsel
to ask for a special order directing interest to run
from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment
and thus restore the position to what it was under
the 1905 rales.
Normally there should be no delay between the
date of perfection of the judgment and the date of
entry save in cases where the procedure is to have in
the first instance a Registrar's Certificate which is
then followed by an entry of judgment based upon
it. In such cases it is a matter for the solicitor as to
how soon he wishes to lodge the necessary papers
for the purpose of having judgment entered. Very
often in cases such as where there is a pending appeal
he may not wish to enter judgment until the out
come is determined.
In the case of Chancery
judgments and orders and on some Common Law
orders there may be delay as to perfection of the
order in difficult and complicated cases but there
will never be any delay between the date of per
fection when ultimately arrived at and the date of
entry, that is to say filing as per Order 41, Rule 6.
This matter has been referred to the Society's
representatives on
the appropriate rule making
committee for consideration by the committee.
Tied garage—unlawful restraint
Arising out of an agreement dated 1/4/63 between
Petrofina (Great Britain) Ltd. and R. H. Martin, the
plaintiff company claimed an injunction restraining
Mr. Martin, the first defendant and Wallis's (Calow)
Ltd., the second defendant, from buying, selling or
advertising at the petrol filling and service station
known as Motorways (the Garage), Top Road,
Chesterfield, the motor fuel or other petroleum
products (except lubricating oils and greases) of any
person, firm, or company other than the plaintiff
company. The plaintiff company had also claimed
an injunction restraining the first defendant from
disposing of the garage without first offering it to
the plaintiff company and from selling or disposing
of his interest in the business carried on there to any
person, firm or company who should not have
previously entered into an agreement with the
plaintiff company to observe the obligations of the
first defendant under the agreement.
Mr. Justice Buckley directed that Mr. Martin
should not dispose of the garage pending the giving
of notice of appeal by the plaintiffs, the status quo to
be preserved until the time for appeal should expire
or be disposed or, the appeal to be prosecuted with
all due diligence.
In delivering his judgment
His Lordship said that the plaintiff company supplied
motor fuel and other petroleum products to petrol
filling stations in various parts of the country and in
many cases entered into solus agreements with
distributors of their products whereby for a period
of years the distributor would undertake to buy
and sell at his petrol filling station none other than
the products of Petrofina. In April 1963, Mr. Martin,
the first defendant entered into such an agreement
with Petrofina, in his own name, for the second
defendant company which was to operate the petrol
filling and service station had not then been in
corporated. By the terms in this agreement, Petrofina
was to supply Mr. Martin at the garage at Calow,
Chesterfield, with petroleum products as currently
marketed by
them
in consideration for which
Mr. Martin undertook to buy exclusively from
Petrofina such Petrofina products as he might
require for his own use or for resale, to sell retail
at Petrofina's published
retail prices,
to keep
adequate stocks on the premises, and to sell only
Petrofina's oils and greases from any lubrication
bay on the premises. By other clauses of the agree
ment, Mr. Martin was to order motor fuel in certain
defined quantities, to exhibit only the Petrofina
advertising materials, and to permit Petrofina to
lock and seal tanks to which they delivered on the
premises. A positive obligation was imposed on
Mr. Martin to carry on the rilling station while the
agreement remained in force.
It was common ground that the break-even point
for petrol sales at this station was at around 50,000
gallons a year.
The effect of Clause 10 of the
agreement (preventing Mr. Martin from terminating
it after the minimum contractual period of 12 years
unless he should have taken and paid for a total of
600,000 gallons of Perrofina motor fuel) was con
sequently that the agreement should remain binding
on Mr. Martin for longer than 12 years unless his
average sales over this period achieved an annual
level of 50,000 gallons. In other words, if, through
nr> fault of his own, he were to fail to sell an average
of 50,000 gallons a year and so were to operate at
a loss, he would remain tied to Petrofina and be
bound to continue trading at this station, selling no
petrol but Fina petrol until he had sold 600,000
gallons, no matter how great the loss this might
involve for him.
Mr. Martin's
predecessors sold only 34,000
gallons at this station in 1961, 31,000 in 1962 and
29,500 gallons during the 12 months ended March 31,
1963. They were in fact operating at a loss. This
89