Supreme Court Cinema Company Sues Builder And City Council

Press, Volume C, Issue 29618, 14 September 1961, Page 10

Supreme Court Cinema Company Sues Builder And City Council

The hoarding which has I been erected around the iron- 1 tages of the Government t Life Insurance Office build- s ing site in Cathedral square had caused a big drop in pat- < rnnage of the Crystal Palace i Theatre, and weekly takings > had fallen by an average of t £122 since work began on « the building m June, said Ur t P. TMahor, in the Supreme t Court yesterday. • He was making his. opening t remarks in an action in c which Amalgamated;! Theatres, Ltd., is seeking anf injunction to restrain the 1 contractor from maintaining ' the hoarding in its present c position, 32ft 9in out from the t boundary of the proposed nine-storeyed building, into r Cathedral square. I The contractor, Cha*. S. t Luney, Ltd., is named as c first defendant, and the s Christchurch City Council as t second defendant. Mr Mahon, with him Mr J. { R. Woodward, is appearing < for the plaintiff. Mr B. - McClelland, with him Mr B. t S. McLaughlin, is appearing . for Chas. S. Luney, Ltd., and * Mr J. G. Leggat for the 1 Christchurch City Council , Mr Justice Turner adjbumed the hearing until t today after one witness for the plaintiff had been heard. The plaintiff is seeking a writ of injunction restraining 5 Chas. S. Luney, Ltd., from j erecting or maintaining any t hoarding or continuing build- . ing operations beyond the , eastern boundary of the * Government Life Insurance ' office site, and also seeks ] damages at the rate of £l3O * a week, as loss of profits s from the date building began , on June 14. ! The plaintiff also seeks an ’ injunction restraining the , Christchurch City Council } from issuing further permits 1 to Chas. S. Luney, Ltd., I authorising it to extend the s building operations and 1 hoarding beyond the ’ eastern boundary line, or, < if an injunction can- t not be had against either defendant, judgment for v £10,400 general damages for S the estimated loss of profits s over the 18 months in which 1 the hoarding will be in place, s Plaintiff s Case Outlining the plaintiff’s 5 case, Mr Mahon said that t when Chas. S. Luney, Ltd., ‘ began work in June it t, erected the usual builder’s ; hoarding around the site. ’ However, instead of follow- ‘ ing the normal building J practice ot erecting the 1 hoarding around the footpath line, the contractor extended 1 the hoarding 32ft 9in from I the boundary of the building s out into Cathedral square. 4 The footpath outside the < Crystal Palace Theatre was t 10ft wide, so that the hoard- t ing around the Government ‘

Life Insurance office building extended 22ft 9in on to the roadway in the square along the theatre boundary. “As a result of the encroachment of the hoarding into Cathedral square the plaintiff alleges that access by the public to the theatre , entrance has been substan- 1 tially impaired and obstructed, and this has caused a substantial drop in the weekly takings from the day of its erection,” said Mr Mahon. " Weekly receipts had fallen by-jsn average of £122 a week compared with takings over the same period in 1960, he said. Mr Mahon said it had been necessary for Chas. S. Luney, Ltd., to obtain a permit from the Christchurch City Council to erect the structure outside the boundary of the building site. “The architect for the Government Life Insurance Office building had negotiated for a permit authorising this particular encroachment, and the City Council granted the permit providing certain conditions were complied with." said Mr Mahon. He said the council had authority to do this under its by-laws. “Abnormal” Evidence for the plaintiff would be that the contractor's encroachment on to the public highway was quite abnormal. The building was in the heart of the city, and the normal practice was to erect the hoardings close to the boundary to Drevent obstruction to traffic. The plaintiff would have had no objection if the hoarding was sft out from the boundary. Mr Mahon said. If this was done, there would be sft of footpaths, and pedestrian traffic would be able to continue as before parallel with the boundary line and into the corner of Cathedral square where the theatre was situated. The plaintiff’s claim in law was that the contractor had gone beyond what was a reasonable use of the public highway tor can-ring out its work, said Mr Mahon. The fact that Chas. S. Luney, Ltd., had a permit from the City Council to go beyond the building boundary was irrelevant in the present case. The question was whether the contractor had extended the hoarding beyond what was really necessary, Mr Mahon submitted. Dealing further with the loss sustained by the Crystal Palace Theatre, Mr Mahon said this theatre was one of 45 operated by the plaintiff, and specialised, along with three other theatres in the other main centres, in “action” programmes.

With the type of programmes screened at the Crystal Palace Theatre receipts tended to be constant at all times, unlike ordinary theatres where a film with good box office appeal would boost takings for several weeks but might be followed by films which would causetakings to fall. Up to the date of erection] of the hoarding the Crystal Palace Theatre had returned substantially the same takings as in 1960, and these takings were similar to those of the other three theatres in the main centres. “Decline Of £1342” “When the hoarding was erected around the construction site the pattern changed. Up to last week there had been a decline of £1342 in takings in 11 weeks since the hoarding was put up” Mr Mahon said. The plaintiff company at one stage had to introduce 1 changes of programmes twice a week to try to j counter the drop in takings,! said Mr Mahon. Hie adverse impact caused’ bv the hoarding was more’ noticeable in a theatre such as the Crystal Palace, which attracted more than 90 per cent, of its natronage from “casual” theatre goers. Only 5 per cent, of its receipts wp-e from advance bookings.] The effect of the hoarding, had been to divert pedestrian i traffic away from this corner] of Cathedral scare. said Mr! Mahon. The flow of ped- ! estrians now tended to by-! oass the theatre entrance and, Square to a traffic island. A Wellington architect. Jack lan King, said in evidence that the area taken by] Chas. S. Luney. Ltd., esneci- ‘ ally along the theatre front-1 age. was excessive and be-1 yond normal practice. He J said the encroachment of the hoarding was abnormal oar-1 ticularly when the building had the advantage of two street frontages. To Mr Leggat he said that, safety to the public and! workmen on the site was of; major importance, and must always be considered by local authorities when granting concessions or permits.