is used as opposed to "injury" in the 1965 Act. In 1964 the Treasury Solicitor obtained a joint Opinion from Sir Frank Soskice QC and
Mr Raymond Kidwell in which they expressed the view that "hurt" was wide in scope than "injury" and could cover pecuniary loss where no
personal injury had been suffered. (A copy of this Opinion will be
supplied if Counsel wishes to see it).
57. Whether or not that is correct, it is highly desirable that the Authority should be put in the same position as a licensee under the 1965 Act at least in respect of the period after the 1965 Act was passed. Counsel is therefore asked to make suitable provision in
the Bill.
58. The period between the passing of the 1954 Act and the passing of the 1965 Act is still relevant for two reasons. First, that no special period of limitation is provided for claims for breach of the duty imposed by section 5(3), although a thirty year period is provided for claims under the 1965 Act (s 15 (1) ). Secondly, claims in respect of that period are being made against the Authority and there is, of course, no provision for them to be referred to "the appropriate authority" under section 16(3).
59. As claims under section 5(3) will be preserved even after the repeal of that section by virtue of section 16(1) of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c.30), Counsel is requested to make provision for the repeal of section 5(3) to take effect from 1 December 1965 when the 1965 Act came into force.
Scotland and Northern Ireland
60.
The 'Bill is to apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Section 27 deals with the
application of the 1965 Act to Northern Ireland.
Page 30Page 31