The Gazette 1964/67

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