The Gazette 1964/67

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). "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 CORRESPONDENCE

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.