CLAIM AGAINST COUNCIL

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28155, 19 December 1956, Page 6

CLAIM AGAINST COUNCIL

Kaiapoi Contractor

Succeeds

A claim by Edward Charles Griebel, a contractor, against the Kaiapoi Borough Council for £ll7 18s 6d, said 1 to be due on a nightsoil collection contract, has been held by Mr F. F. Reid, S.M., to have succeeded. In a reserved decision given in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, the Magistrate gave judgment for Griebel for that amount with costs. The case was heard on November 13, when Mr B. J. Drake appeared for Griebel, and the Borough Council was represented by Mr W. R. Lascelles. The contract made on November 30, 1953, was that Griebel be paid £2 12s a pan a year, and for 1954 the price was not to exceed £2 15s. Every year after that the price was to be reasonable and subject to annual arbitration. For the year beginning April 1, 1954, the price a pan was agreed on as £2 13s 6d. In March, 1955, Griebel had an interview with the Mayor because he had become aware that a number of houses in Kaiapoi would probably be connected with the new sewerage system during the year. Griebel was told he would not be paid for pans connected during the year, said the judgment.

“From June, 1955, onwards a number of houses were connected with the sewer, and in each month the council deducted 4s 5Jd a pan from the monthly payments made to Griebel, who protested against these deductions,” said the judgment.

“I can come to no other conclusion than that both parties contracted on the basis that Griebel would be servicing the borough for three years without regard to the possibility of a substantial connexion to the sewerage scheme,” said the judgment. “I accept what Griebel says, that before he entered into the contract he made a careful estimate of the number of houses he would be required to service, and he made allowance for a small give and take in this number, but made no allowance for largescale sewerage connexion.

“In March. 1955, he took up this question with the Borough Council, and at that stage the council could have made its attitude perfectly clear, but it did not do so. Griebel clearly wanted to know what his position was. He knew his own fixed running costs, and if he had been told unequivocally that his returns would be substantially diminished he could have met the position to some extent by adjustment in the price. “In the circumstances I hold that Griebel is entitled to succeed, and he will have judgment for £ll7 18s 6d and costs,” said the Magistrate’s decision.