Redgrave's Factories Acts / by Alexander Redgrave.

  • United Kingdom
Date:
1931
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Redgrave's Factories Acts / by Alexander Redgrave. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    71/842 page 37
    floors. Similar decisions have been given in London County Council v. Brass (1901), 17 T. L. R. 504, and Toller v. Spiers and Pond, Limited, infra, note (2). (g) Fine.—Recoverable summarily (see s. 144, post, p. 209). In proceedings for its recovery the justices ought to hear evidence tending to show that the measures specified are impossible to carry out; but under those circumstances the defendant’s proper course is to demand an arbitration under sub-s. (3) (Consolidated Pro- perties Co. v. Chilvers (1901), 18 T. L. R. 59). (h) Arbitration Rules.—See p. 237, post. (c) Award.—Where two or more separate factories (not being tenement factories) are in the same building and belong to the same owner the notice and award must deal with them separately, and will be ineffectual if they do not do so. In Toller v. Spiers and Pond, Limited, [1903] 1 Ch. 362; 67 J. P. 234; 72 L. J. Ch. 191; 87 L. T. 578; 51 W. RB. 381; 1 L. G. R. 193, the plaintiff — owned an eight-floored building, of which the basement, ground, first, third, and fourth floors were let to the defendants and were a factory, while the fifth, sixth and seventh floors were let to another person, and were another factory. One notice to provide means of escape was given by the county council, and one award was made by the arbitrator, which directed that a staircase would be made from the third to the seventh floor, communicating with each floor. BucKuey, J., held that the notice and award were bad, because they did not deal with the two factories separately. It was further held in the same case that the mere fact that the defendants were not present at the arbitration did not prevent the award being binding upon them. (k) May apply to the County Court.—The word “ may” means “must”? (per VauaHAN WrutiaMs, L.J., in Horner v. Franklin). It has been decided by the Court of Appeal in Horner v. Franklin, p19) 1 1 B.479'; 69: 3..P. 7 5 74. J. K. B. 2913.92 1. 1.178; 21 T. L. R. 225; 3 L. G. R. 423; and Stuckey v. Hooke, [1906] 2. B20; 10: J.P. 393; 15. LJ. K.B. 504; 94. L. F723; 54 W.R. 509; 22 T. L. R. 508; 4 L. G. R. 815, that the effect of this sub-section and of the similar provisions in s. 7 (4) (ventilation) and s. LOL (8) (underground bakehouses), is to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court altogether, and that even when the lease contains a covenant that the occupier is to pay these expenses the owner cannot bring an action on the covenant, but must apply to the inferior court. The contrary decision of LAWRANCE, J., in Shephard v. Barber (1902), 67 J. P. 238, is therefore overruled. (J) Just and Equitable.—A question has arisen as to how far the county court judge, in determining what is just and equitable, is bound by the terms of the covenants in the lease or other con- tract between the parties. In Monk v. Arnold, [1902] 1 K. B. 761; 71L. J. K. B. 441; 86 L. T. 580; 50 W. R. 667, Lord ALVER- STONE, C.J.,and DARLING and CHANNELL, JJ., decided that although the county court judge ouglit to have regard to any covenants in
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3