Court : House of Lords
Viscount Sankey MY LORDS, This is an Appeal by Regal (Hastings) Limited from an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal dated the 15th February, 1941. That Court dismissed the Appeal of the Appellants from a judgment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Wrottesley, dated the 3Oth August, 1940. The Appeal was brought by special leave granted by this House on the 2nd April, 1941. The Appellants we're the plaintiffs in the action and are referred to as "Regal"; the Respondents were the Defendants.The action was brought by Regal against the first five Respondents, who were former Directors of Regal, to recover from them, sums of money amounting to 7,010 8s. 4d., being profits made by them upon the acquisition and sale by them of shares in the subsidiary company formed by Regal and known as Hastings Amalgamated Cinemas Limited. This Company is referred to as " Amalgamated ". The action was brought against the Defendant, Garton, who was Regal's former solicitor, to recover the sum of 1,402 1s. 8d., being ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
The Lord Chancellor MY LORDS, In this Appeal I should be well content to adopt the unanimous judgments delivered in the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, which appear to me to provide a conclusive answer to the argument for the Appellants. The material facts giving rise to the litigation are conveniently set out in the judgment of Lord Chief Justice Andrews. They may be summarised as follows:— The Respondents were insured by the Appellant Company against liability to third parties arising from damage to property caused by the use by them of a petrol tanker belonging to the Respondents. On August 2nd, 1937, this tanker, which was being driven by their employee, one Davison, had taken on board a consignment of 300 gallons of petrol at the Larne Depot of Holmes, Mullin and Dunn, Ltd., for delivery into the storage tank of one Catherwood, a garage proprietor, of Belfast. Davison drove the tanker to Belfast, backed it into Catherwood's garage, inserted the nozzle of the delivery ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
The Lord Chancellor MY LORDS, The question to be determined in this Appeal is as to the circumstances in which it may be validly claimed on behalf of the Crown that documents, the production of which is demanded by regular process in a civil action, should not be produced on the ground that it would be contrary to the public interest to produce them, and as to the proper procedure to be followed if this claim is to be made good. This question is of high constitutional importance, for it involves a claim by the Executive to restrict the material which might otherwise be available for the tribunal which is trying the case. This material one party, at least, to the litigation may desire in his own interest to make available, and without it, in some cases, equal justice may be prejudiced. The question may arise, as in the present instance, in an action between private parties; but it may also arise in a case where the Crown itself, or the Crown's representative, is a party to the suit, and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
The Lord Chancellor MY LORDS, This is the appeal of a Polish Company who were Plaintiffs in the action against the decision of the Court of Appeal composed of Lord Justice MacKinnon, Lord Justice Luxmoore, and Mr. Justice Stable, confirming the judgment of Mr. Justice Tucker at the trial in favour of the Respondents. After the Court of Appeal's judgment and before the appeal came to be argued at your Lordships' bar, the town of Vilna, where the Appellant Company had carried on its business, and indeed the whole of Poland, under the laws of which State the Appellant Company was incorporated, were occupied by our enemy Germany. The question might, therefore, arise whether the Appellant Company should now be debarred from prosecuting its appeal. (See the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered by Lord Reading C.J. in Porter v. Freudenberg [1915] I K.B. 857, especially at pages 868 and 884; see also Rodriguez v. Speyer Bros. [1919] A.C. 59.) In order to obviate any difficulty on this hea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Thankerton MY LORDS, The Appellant is pursuer in an action of reparation, in which she claims damages from the Respondent as executor-dative of the late John Young, in respect of injuries alleged to have been sustained by her owing to the fault of John Young, on the occasion of a collision between a motor-cycle which the latter was riding and a motor car on the nth October, 1938, which resulted in the death of John Young, to whom I will hereafter refer as the cyclist. After a proof, Lord Robertson assoilzied the Respondent on the ground that the cyclist had not been guilty of any breach of duty to the Appellant, and this decision was affirmed by the Second Division, Lord Justice Clerk Aitchison dissenting. The facts as to the occurrence of the collision and its relation to the Appellant are comparatively simple. The Appellant, who is a fishwife, was a passenger on a tramway car which was proceeding in the direction of Colinton along the Colinton Road, which may be taken as a south...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
The Lord Chancellor MY LORDS, The question in this case is whether two sums of 20,000 each which were paid to the Appellant by a Company named Stevenson and Howell Ltd., carrying on the business of manufacturing chemists,of which he was Managing Director, fall to be assessed for income tax under Schedule E. as being profits from his employment as such Director. The circumstances in which this question arises are very special, and before a correct solution can be reached, it is necessary to refer to three Agreements made at different dates between the Company and the Appellant. The first of these Agreements is dated December 19th, 1921. It recites that the Appellant was the inventor of a secret process for the manufacture of a product to be used by the Company in connection with their business. Under this Agreement, the Appellant, who was already a Director of the Company, divulged to the then Managing Director, his secret process, and the Company contracted to pay to the Appellant a ro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD THANKERTON.—This action arises out of an unfortunate accident to six young children on 15th June 1940 in the old mansion house in the King's Park, Glasgow, which belongs to the appellants. At that time the mansion house was being used inter alia for the service of teas to visitors to the park and also as a shop for the sale of sweets and ices. The mansion house is now in military occupation. The witness, Mrs Emily Alexander, was manageress of the tea rooms and shop on behalf of the appellants, and the action is based on the alleged negligence of Mrs Alexander, in breach of a duty to take reasonable care of the children. After a proof before answer, the Lord Ordinary, Lord Robertson, on 6th June 1941 assoilzied the appellants, but his interlocutor was recalled by the First Division of the Court of Session, the Lord President dissenting, by interlocutor dated 7th November 1941, and, the amount of damages having been agreed, subject to reservation of the defenders' right to bri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
The Lord Chancellor MY LORDS, It is an essential element of the cause of action for defamation that the words complained of should be published of the plaintiff. If the words are not so published, the plaintiff is not defamed and cannot have any right to ask that the defendant should be held responsible to him in respect of them. In the case now before us the learned trial Judge, Mr. Justice Stable, decided that the words of the libel did refer to the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Lord Justice MacKinnon and Lord Justice Goddard, decided that the words could not be regarded as referring to the plaintiff, and consequently allowed the appeal and dismissed the action. This is the issue which we now have to decide. The Defendants printed and published in their newspaper on July 1st, 1941, the words following, which are set out in the Statement of Claim: — But the quislings on whom Hitler flatters himself he can build a pro-German movement within the Soviet Union are an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD CHANCELLOR(Viscount Simon).—This appeal raises once again the question, which has been so often discussed and decided in the "frustration" cases arising out of the last war and now also out of the present war, whether a particular contract, entered into before the war, has been brought to a premature conclusion by war regulations which render illegal, and therefore prevent, the due performance of some of the obligations or the due enjoyment of some of the rights under the contract. The decision in the present case depends on the application of principles already well settled, and in my view, the conclusion reached by the majority of the Inner House, reversing that of the late Lord Robertson, is correct. Of the various opinions of the majority, that of Lord Wark expresses with great clarity the course of reasoning which has led me to the view that that appeal should be dismissed. [His Lordship gave the narrative of facts quoted supra, and continued]— The question is whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD CHANCELLOR(Viscount Simon).—After hearing and considering the able arguments on either side addressed to this House by Mr Clyde and the Solicitor-General for Scotland respectively, and re-examining the authorities to which they referred, I had already formed the view that the bequest in debate attracted the rule of construction known in Scotland as conditio si sine liberis institutus decesserit. But, before completing a written opinion of my own, I had the advantage of reading that prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Macmillan, which I gratefully adopt in preference to attempting an independent pronouncement. I move that the appeal be dismissed. LORD THANKERTON(read by Lord Porter).—This appeal raises a question as to the proper construction of the residuary purpose of the last trust-disposition and settlement, dated 5th July 1937, of Mrs Grace Cochrane Darney or Devlin, who died on 8th December 1941. The testatrix also left a codicil dated 13th April 1938, th...
Tag this Judgment!