Lady Architect's Claim

Progress, Volume XIII, Issue 1, 1 September 1917, Page 11

Lady Architect's Claim

In New Zealand there arc very few ladies practising the profession of Architecture, but in some other countries the profession of architecture has been more freely adopted. An interesting case recently occurred in Australia where a lady Architect claimed certain fees for work done in drawing plans for a residence, and as it will probably be of interest to many architects (not only the ladies) practising here, we reprint the evidence from the "Age":—

A claim by a lady architect for fees for plans and specifications prepared and work done, brought in the County Court before Judge Eagleson, the hearing of which concluded yesterday, raised some interesting issues. Plaintiff was Marion Mahony Griffin, of National Mutual Buildings, Collins Street, Melbourne (the wife of Walter B. Griffin, the architect for the Federal Capital), and defendant was R. 11. Beeves, of Nott Street, East Malvern. Plaintiff's demand was for work, labour and attendances performed by her at defendant's request; for sketch plans, and specifications prepared; and for commission on the erection of a house at Wattle Tree Road, East Malvern. In the alternative, plaintiff demanded damages for the copy and use of her copyright plans and designs for a suburban residence. Plaintiff claimed £lO5.

The general defence was that a house was ordered at a total cost price of £1400; that satisfactory plans for such a building had never been forthcoming; and that plaintiff now claimed £lO5 for services which had not been of the slightest value to defendant, inasmuch as the plans had not complied with his stipulated requirements. Mr. Lewis (instructed by Messrs. Kaufmann and Snowball) appeared for plaintiff; and Mr. Dethridge (instructed by Mr. C. J. McFarlane) for the defence. Judge Eagleson said the evidence showed that defendant placed a limit on the cost of the building at £I4OO, and requested plaintiff to prepare him certain sketches accordingly. Plaintiff said that her terms were 71 per cent, for the building complete. This was made up of 21- per cent, for a sketch, 21per cent, for working drawings, and 21 per cent, for final supervision of the complete building. Plaintiff knew from the first that a specific amount stipulated, including a . hot water service, was not to be exceeded. Her duty as an architect was to give the best services possible to defendant, in accordance with his requirements. But instead of producing a sketch plan for a building costing £I4OO, or anything like that sum, she produced one the cost of which would be somewhere near £2OOO, or over. Subsequently certain modifications were made in the plan, which amended plan, however, defendant declined to accept. In the house, as finally erected by another person, his Honor expressed the opinion that there had been no infringement of plaintiff’s copyright plans. He held that plaintiff had not carried out what defendant had requested in regard to the preparation of plans of a house costing £I4OO, and gave judgment for defendant, with costs.