§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause 1 [Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name. I believe it would be for your Lordships' convenience if we discussed the first, second and fourth Amendments, as they turn on the same point. The Amendments deal with a limited point, the rare and possible case of, for example, a collision occurring while a ship is in the possession of or under the control of some person for whose acts, neglects or defaults the owners and charterers of the ship are not responsible—for instance, a demise charterer whose charter has expired but who is retaining possession of the ship wrongfully as against the owner (a stale of facts which has occurred in recent history). I do not know that we have 370 quite approached the position put to me by the noble and learned Earl when he suggested, in our earlier discussion of this Bill, that I might have used the word "pirate" for "pilot"; but I believe this is a helpful Amendment and meets a possible, even though it be a rare, case. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("or charterers") and insert (", charterers or persons in possession or control").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, my noble and learned friend has asked me to say that he regrets he has had to go, but he is perfectly satisfied with the Amendment now proposed. May I say, as a general observation and for future occasions, that owing to the courtesy of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack all the Amendments on the Order Paper meet the points raised. in the course of the Committee stage, and they comprise also a number of Amendments which originate from the noble and learned Viscount for the purpose of improving the Bill. We on this side of the House have no particular observations to make. That may help the noble and learned Viscount to shorten the proceedings.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for what he has said. The practice which he has mentioned might be helpful to the noble Lord and to the noble and learned Earl, and it will be followed, so far as am able, in the future.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThis Amendment stands with the first. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("or charterers") and insert (", charterers or persons in possession or control").—(The Laid Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 3 [Mode of exercise of Admiralty jurisdiction]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. A member of the Admiralty Bar who hears the honoured name of Bucknill has suggested that the references in subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 3 to the owner or charterer of a ship being personally liable might have the effect of excluding 371 an action in rem where the owner or charterer's liability rested on the principle of vicarious responsibility. In support he quoted a number of authorities which I am sure would instruct and amuse your Lordships; but in view of your pressing business I do not intend to read those to your Lordships at this stage. Mr. Bucknill raised a point which I thought should be dealt with, for where a doubt is raised it is better that it should be resolved so in Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 6 we have dealt with this aspect. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("is personally liable") and insert ("would be liable on the claim in an action in personam").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, Amendment No. 4 is one of the same series that I mentioned in dealing with the first Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 14, after ("of") insert ("or in possession or in control of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, Amendment No. 5 falls into the second series and is consequential upon the other. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("personally liable on the claim") and insert ("who would be liable on the claim in an action in personam.") —(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6, which also falls into the second series of Amendments of which I have spoken and is consequential on the others.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 5, line 34, at end insert—
("(7) In determining for the purposes of subsections (4) and (5) of this section whether a person would be liable on a claim in an action in personam it shall be assumed that he has his habitual residence or place of business within England and Wales.")—(The Lord Chancellor)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
372§ Clause 38 [Attachment of debts]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7 This Amendment is on a new point. Clause 38 enables sums standing to the credit of a judgment debtor in a deposit account in a bank to be attached to satisfy the judgment debt, even though the conditions which must be satisfied before the money in the account becomes due and payable from the banker to his customer have not been satisfied. Your Lordships will see that some of the conditions which may thus be disregarded are set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), while others may be prescribed by rules of court. The most common condition, however, is the giving of so many days' notice (at present seven days') before money can be withdrawn. In the case on which Clause 38 is founded the condition about notice was irrelevant, because notice of withdrawal had in fact been given by the judgment debtor in that case. That was, however, an unusual circumstance, and it is clearly desirable that the clause should state specifically that the condition about notice may be disregarded. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 24, line 15, at end insert—
("(a) any condition that notice is required before any money is withdrawn;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I now direct your Lordships' attention to Amendment No. 8. This arises because of a point that was put to us by the clearing banks, and I think it is a sensible point. Many of the banks have special savings bank sections primarily designed for the encouragement of small savings. The terms governing savings accounts (by whatever name they may be called) differ from those relating to ordinary deposit accounts and are similar to those of the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks, in that withdrawals up to a limited amount may be made on demand at any branch of the bank. The main reason for exempting Post Office and other savings banks from the operation of Clause 38—namely, that the banks could not comply with a garnishee order without serious administrative difficulties—applies equally to savings accounts in ordinary banks. I 373 think it was right to bring them into line with the savings banks, and we put this Amendment down to do so. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page, 24, line 25, at end add ("or to ant account in any hank with two or more places of business if the terms applicable to that account permit withdrawals on demand, on production of a deposit book, at more than one of those places of business, with or without restrictions as to the amount which may be withdrawn").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 40 to insert the following new clause:
§ Execution and enforcement of judgments and orders of the Court of Appeal
§ ". For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that any enactment (including any enactment in this Act) which authorises or requires the taking of any steps in the executon or enforcement of a judgment or order of the High Court shall apply in relation to a judgment or order of the Court of Appeal as it applies in relation to a judgment or order of the High Court."
§ The noble and learned Viscount said: This new clause makes it clear that any steps which are authorised or required by Statute in order to execute or enforce a judgment of the High Court are also authorised or required in relation to a judgment of the Court of Appeal. It is a curious fact that, up to now, over quite a considerable field the point has not been dealt with, for of course after a case is appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeal has to be executed or enforced. We thought that—as I am trying to do by this Bill—we ought to correct these anomalies that exist in the law. We have by this clause corrected one which I think requires so doing. I do not think that I need deal with it further. That is the main purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 40, insert the said new clause."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, I think that is right, but I wonder whether the same point does not also apply to judgments or orders of the House of Lords. After all, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, the Court of Appeal is not the final court of appeal. Is it not conceivable that the same position might arise as regards decisions of the House of Lords? Would the noble and learned 374 Viscount not wish to put such judgments or orders in exactly the same position?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. I think that the position is (if he will allow me to state a view which I have not actually confirmed) that these judgments have to be registered in the Queen's Bench for enforcement. But if I am wrong on that, I will certainly see that the necessary action is taken when the Bill comes before another place. As I say, I think the point is covered, but I always like to check on a point like that, and I will let the noble Lord know what the position is. But he may take it that if there is anything to be done, it will be done in another place.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 45 [Arrest of ships on the dependence of an action or in rem]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords. I now come to Amendments No. 10 and No. 11. These Amendments are directed to meeting the same point in the clause relating to the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Scottish courts as is dealt with in the case of the Admiralty Courts in England by the Amendments made in Clause 1, at page 2, line 4, and page 2, line 6. This is exactly the same point. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 25, leave out ("or charterers") and insert (", charterers or persons in possession or control").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI beg formally to move the last Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 27, leave out ("or charterers") and insert (",charterers or persons in possession or control ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 13):
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I am not going to detain the House, because I have indicated to your Lordships on more than one occasion that this Bill is a tidying-up measure which covers a number of aspects of the law. I wish to add only a few words. I think it is most important that your Lordships' House, 375 especially, should always be looking narrowly at the law and seeing that it is kept up to date and that improvements are constantly being made. Despite the variety of matters dealt with in this Bill, and the fact that some of them appear at first sight to be of no great importance—though others are of considerable importance—I submit it respectfully to your Lordships as a useful measure in helping on the improvement of the law and our legal system.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendments (Privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.