The Gazette 1964/67

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 held (C.A.; Lord Denning M.R., Hannen and Winn, L.JJ.; 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

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 Appeal; 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