AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Copper-theft case re-opened: former employee saw CM report

10th May 1968, Page 21
10th May 1968
Page 21
Page 21, 10th May 1968 — Copper-theft case re-opened: former employee saw CM report
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Plaintiff, Law / Crime

• A report in COMMERCIAL M OTOR Of the case in which James Holden Junior (CrumpsaW Ltd., hauliers, sued Lloyds underwriters for €5,421 led to Mr. Justice Donaldson hearing more evidence in the case in the High Court on Wednesday: judgment had been reserved in March (CM, March 15) when it was thought that the hearing was concluded.

The company had claimed that the underwriters had no right to reject their goods-intransit insurance claim following the theft in 1966 of a lorry-load of copper. The underwriters contended that they could repudiate the claim because the lorry had been left unattended in London and the cab door key was missing in breach of the policy's terms.

Mr. Robert Goff, QC, for the defence said the report of the case had been seen by a former employee of Holden who was rather surprised at certain parts of the evidence reported to have been given on behalf of the plaintiff company. Inquiries had been made and the defence now wished to call evidence, from four or five witnesses, which appeared to be in direct conflict with evidence given on the plaintiff's behalf by four witnesses at the previous hearing.

The judge granted the request to submit further evidence and allowed the defence to amend their pleaded case to allege, first, that in many cases, protective devices fitted to the plaintiff's lorries were not operable because they were defective or because the key was missing: and, second, that at a meeting four or five months before the theft, no instructions were given not to leave lorries unattended.

Mr. D. P. Croom-Johnson QC, for Holden, was given leave to call further evidence in rebuttal if he felt this necessary.

Mr. Jack 011erhead, aged 54, formerly employed by the plaintiff firm as night foreman, said a number of steering column locking devices were lost, or the key lost.

Mr. Croom-Johnson, cross-exam in in g, suggested that before 1966 the idea had been tried out and found to be more trouble than it was worth.

Tags

Organisations: High Court
Locations: London

comments powered by Disqus