appeal dismissed

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 156, 28 March 1939, Page 6

appeal dismissed

Plumbing Contract On New House An appeal against a judgment of Mr. J. 11. Luxford, S.M., in a case described by him as of importance to contractors and sub-constractors, was dismissed by Mr. Justice Reed tn the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday. Appellants were it. Wainwright Ltd., Wellington, plumbers, and respondents Alfred Flett, Kliandallah, builder, aud A. E. Hodgson, Kliandallah, engineer. Mr. M. G. Neal appeared for appellants, Mr. W. D. Goodwin for respondents, and Mr. S. Hardy for an intervening lien holder. 'Wainwright Ltd. entered into a subcontract with Flett to undertake plumbing and drainage work in connexion with the construction of a dwelling to be erected by 1< lett for Hodgson. The house was completed, but the sum of £165/1-1/0 remained owing bv Flett to the company, which claimed a lien for that amount on Hodgson’s land. Notice of intention to claim a lien was given on August 18, 1938. . In his judgment the magistrate said the question was whether the notice was served within 30 days of the completion of the sub-contract. The company alleged it was completed on August 17, 1938, when an old drain, not cut and sealed in the work, was dealt with. He held that this was extra work, and the period for serving the notice began to run in May, when the main work was done, uot from August 7, when the cutting and sealing of the drain was done Mr. Neal submitted for appellants that the later work was included in (be plans and specifications which provided that the job was to be comDieted to the satisfaction ot the city council inspectors. Work of that nature was included iu a contract by trade custom. Respondents were stopped from saying that the work was extra, because it was not open for them to fix a date of completion earlier than the date on which the inspectors issued a certificate of completion. Further, respondents could prove the work was not part of the contract only by production of an architect’s certificate. His Honour said he did not. wish to hear counsel for respondents and dismissed the appeal with £5/5/- costs.