![handle is hein.journals/solicjo131 and id is 1 raw text is: The Soicito-rs' Journal
Vol112 .No.2;7'.5 July 1968
An end to discretion
THE Estate Duty Office seems to be engaged in a thorough
testing of the law about discretionary trusts. In Re Weir's
Settlement Trusts, reported at p 544, the trustees, in the events
that had happened, were obliged to distribute the whole
income of the settled fund between two people as they thought
fit. One of the two people died and duty was claimed on the
ground that the fund passed on her death. The decision of
CROss J upholding the claim merely confirms the recognised
practice that duty is payable on the death of the last, or last
but one, of the discretionary objects. The interesting part of
the judgment is the learned judge's admission that, although
bound by the decisions in Burrell v Attorney General [1937] AC
286 and Scott and Coutts & Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners
[1937] AC 174, to hold that duty was payable, he could not
find any reason why it should be.
Land Commission superfluous
A SPIRITED defence of the Land Commission by its chairman,
SIR HENRY WELLS, in a speech to the Rural District Councils
Association, left us with the feeling that the commission's
existence was hard to justify, except as a tax collector for
betterment levy. A major part of Sir Henry's speech was
devoted to explaining how the commission, with its com-
pulsory purchase powers, could assist planning authorities.
It is not that the commission has any planning powers. The
suggestion is that only by bulk purchase by the commission
can land which is destined to be developed be released for
that purpose in an orderly manner to keep pace with the
provision of ancillary services. Until now, planning authorities
have themselves managed this perfectly well. In cases where
local drainage services, or water supplies, have been tempor-
arily fully extended, permission has been withheld until the
problems have been overcome. Why it should now be desirable
to achieve the same effect in a way which means that public
money has to be sunk in the purchase of the land meanwhile is
difficult to understand. The commission's own survey revealed
that most of the land still used for agricultural purposes but
zoned for development has been acquired by, or is under
option to, developers. There is really no reason to believe that
they will be slow to develop it when given the opportunity.
The commission is willing to use its compulsory purchase
powers on behalf of local authorities. However, except in rare
cases, it will not pass on to the authority its benefit in buying
at a price net of betterment levy, and indeed will add some-
thing to cover its own expenses. Why, then, bother with the
duplication? Sir Henry was pained that the commission was
blamed for the high price of land. He said it was due to the
restricted supply. We agree. The real criticisms have been
that the comrissioj h'as ndt broight down the price as some
of its political advocates thought it would. As it plainly cannot
-and it is negotiating for land at an average price of C3,500
an acre-this seems yet another reason for doubting the
necessity for it to continue.
Gain not profit
FEw articled clerks would readily agree with MR JUSTICE
COOKE that they were gainfully employed if all that they were
paid was the cost of their travel to and from work and the cost
of their lunches. However, such payments are sufficient to
constitute gainful employment under the National Insurance
Acts, so attracting contributions and employed persons rates:
In re J B Griffiths, Quinn & Co and Others (1968) The Times
21 June. The articles of the 2 articled clerks concerned did not
make any mention of these payments, but the judge held that
they were contractually entitled to them as both parties
had had them in mind when the articles started. Once it was
decided that the payments were a contractual right, we should
not have expected the argument that the sums were simply a
reimbursement of payments made by the clerks to be successful.
There are a very great number of people who do not expect
to make a 'profit' on their pay, so that it could be looked at as
reimbursement of the expenses they incur, although it must
be admitted that it is the employees who decide how to spend
the money and what they receive is not calculated directly
from their expenses. The recent case should be noted for
another reason. The appellant firm was represented by one of
its partners, Mr A B QUINN, the other partner, Mr J B
GRIFFITHS, having undertaken to abide by the court's decision.
The undertaking was presumably required because MrQuinn's
appearance was technically in person. If proof were needed
that solicitors would from time to time be quite capable of
conducting High Court actions, it has been afforded again.
The Bar need not be too jealous of its monopoly; the work of
county courts has been quite successfully shared.
The answer
ON 14 June we asked for guidance from the High Court on
the question whether a motorist whose blood contained only
slightly more than the statutory alcohol limit could plead that
as a special reason to avoid disqualification under the Road
Safety Act 1967 (p 470). The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE has now
said: 'I have grave doubts whether the fact that [the driver]
had drunk but a small amount of alcohol, let alone that he was
unaware that he had been affected thereby, could be special
reasons' (James v Hall (1968) The Times 26 June).
2
Current topics
Page 529](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/solicjo131&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most