SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 130, 26 February 1919, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

: A BUILDING DISPUTE \' ~i - REFERRED TO AN ARBITRATOR In the Supreme Court 'yesterday, liefore His Honour Mr. Justice l , Edwards, Hip. casa:of Irvine and Burr, builders and contractors, v. H. Spear, iv claim for . £'M 123. Gd. for work • done, was calllid. ' . : His Honour i-emarlced upon the mass of details ■ rind technicalities involved in ■the case, and asked if he were expected to spend half a (lay in attempt.iiiK to iind out "if there should or should :io£ l:e_'n pair of new taps to a bathroom basin at a cost, of sa. Gd.," and suggested that the matter was one for an architect or an expert to investigate., The amount claimed was for the balance (£iW) of a contract for JfflOO.for altcrntions and additions to a house iu Oriental bay, and •£lO4- 123.-,Gd. for extras. . Jfr. A. W. Blair, who appeared for the defendant, said he would- be content to refer the mattevif to an architect, v.ho roiild also deal with the plans and .specifications.

Mr; T. Nenve (for the plaintiffs) s.iiid' that the Conrt would certainly llir.l the matter very troublesome—tie builders found it very) troublesome. T),e work involved renovation of old premises fiild additions. '" He was perfectly willing' to refer.the whole matter to an independent architect-. It was not part lof the claim of tlie plaintiffs that tfiey-.lmJ undertaken any duties •as ; architects. The' plaintiffs were shown over the" building,. and certain work was pointed nut to them as ..requiring attention. The. owner deliberately refused to engage an architect, and the builders prepared a plan and. specifications, and they contended that the work was done,. and how tl-at work was done wns a technical mutter. The defendant had refused to 'listen to\ any claim or cencede any. demand. Tho builders were ordered away from the place,, and were even refused permission to take their plant away, and they had no' option but to bring the case into Court. The suggestion .'that the ir.f.ltei j in dispute should be referred to an avchi-' tent w'a* welcomed by them. , His Honour suggested that he .should adjourn the case so that counsel might agree upon an architect to act. as arbitrator. . •■■ Mr. Neave: Could it not bo referred to. an arbitrator by order of the (..Mirt? ' Mr. Blair said that the plaintiffs represented themselves. ■ as '. architects and builders, and he wanted to know whether that question would bo.submitted to the arbitrator. - • - His Honour said that the arbitrator could inquire, into the technicalities and any question of law could bo referred to the Court. ">. Counsel 'agreed to this, and the Court adjourned. I