The Gazette 1952-1955

for refusing to unload a ship by the port manager was a nullity. The Court had power in their discretion to make a declaration relating to the decision o f the validity o f a statutory tribunal; and in the circumstances would grant the plaintiffs a declaration that their suspension was wrong and a nullity. Per Denning L .J.—It was suggested that the action of the local Board in suspending a man was merely an administrative function and not a judicial one, and was similar in character to the action o f an employer in dismissing him. I do not accept that view. Under the Order of 1947, so far from the Board being in the position o f an employer, the Board are put in a judicial position between the men and the employers. While an administrative function can often be delegated a judicial function rarely can be. No judicial tribunal can delegate its functions, unless expressly enabled to do so. It was suggested that it would be impracticable for the Board to sit as a Board to decide all these cases, but I see nothing impracticable in that. I do not doubt that there is power for the Courts to intervene, not only by certiorari, but also by way o f declaration. I know o f no limit to the power o f the Court to grant a declaration, except such limit as it may, in its discretion, impose upon itself, and the Court should not I think tie its hands in this matter o f statutory tribunals. It is axiom­ atic that when a statutory tribunal sits to administer justice, it must act in accordance with the law Parliament clearly so intended. Why then should not the Court intervene by declaration and injunc­ tion ? I f it cannot so intervene, it would mean that the tribunal could disregard the law. (Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board—(1953) 1. A ll E .R . 1113 .) Fatal Accidents Acts—Payment into Court Practice In an action under the Patal Accidents Acts, i f the defendantspay £1,879 l8> °- ^nto Court with an admis­ sion of liability, and i f theplaintiff, refusing to accept this sum, proceeds to trial, and is awarded £1,860 damages, is this a case in which the trial Judge was entitled to award the costs of the action to the plaintiff under the Pules of Court whereby the costs in every action, question, and issue tried by a jury shall follow the event, unless fo r special cause shown and mentioned in the order that the judge shall otherwise directi No, said the Court of Appeal (Porter and Black L .JJ ., Sheil J.,) reversing Lord McDermott C.J., because the “ question ” tried by the jury was the sufficiency o f the lodgment in Court, notwithstand­ ing that the fact and the amount o f lodgment could 22

The workman had died in January 1952 as the result o f an accident in the Erne Development Scheme, Ballyshannon. The widow obtained an Irish grant o f administration of his estate, but did not apply for an English grant. In June 1952, when instituting proceedings in England, the indorse­ ment of the writ stated that her claim was as “ administratrix o f the estate ” o f her husband. The defendants thereupon issued a summons asking that the writ and all subsequent proceedings be set aside on the ground that the plaintiff had no title to administer in England. It was held—That even if it were legitimate to read the writ and the statement o f claim together, the effect o f those documents so read was that the plaintiff was purporting to sue in a representative capacity as administratrix o f her husband’s estate ; and therefore the plaintiff had no title to sue and the writ must be set aside. Per Singleton, L.J .—Had I been untrammelled by authority I might well have reached the conclusion that it matters not to the defendants in which capacity the plaintiff sues, and no injustice would be done if this were regarded as an action by a widow, and the question of administration were not considered. These technicalities are a blot on the administration o f the law, and everyone except the successful party dislikes them. They decrease in numbers as the years go and I wish that I could see a way round this one. I do not know why the. Fatal Accidents Act 1846 contained a provision that the action must be brought within a year o f the death. There is no such limiting period in the case of an injury, however serious. Per Jenkins L .J. I agree with regret that there is no alternative but to dismiss the appeal. Per Morris L .J.—Much as I regret the conclusion which we have reached, I consider that this appeal must be dismissed. (Finnegan v. Cementation Co. Ltd., (1953), 1, All E. R. 1130). Legality o f delegation o f powers by statutory tribunal. Can the power of suspension conferred by Statute on a local Dock Labour Board be properly delegated and exercised by a Port Manager ? No, said the Court of Appeal (Singleton, Denning and Romer L .JJ.). This power was a judicial or quasi-judicial function and the local Board, whose constitution was provided for, by statutory order, had no power to delegate it, or subsequently to ratify a decision by a person to whom the power o f suspension had been improperly delegated and therefore the suspension o f the plaintiff workmen