Divers’ Claim Hearing Continues

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30998, 2 March 1966, Page 18

Divers’ Claim Hearing Continues

(N.Z. Press Association)

GISBORNE, March 1. The head of a Cambridge diving contracting firm which was engaged on the Gisborne sewerage outfall job, spent his second day in the wit-ness-box in the Supreme court before Mr Justice Gresson todav.

N.Z. Diving Equipment, Ltd. (Mr R. R. Kearney) is seeking £3397 12s 2d from the Gisborne City Council and Canterbury Pipelines, Ltd. (Mr R. J. de Goldi). There is a counter-claim by Canterbury Pipelines for £8195 for alleged breach of contract. Mr R. A. Chrisp, for the Gisborne City Council, was granted leave to withdraw. He said his client was a nominal defendant only as the holder of money. The case is expected to last several days. Continuing his evidence, Dennis Penn Lascelles Twiss,

the firm’s head, said his company did not offer to put his divers above the pipeline. It would be broadly correct to say that to take the divers and the barge to the site and moor the barge took between two and five hours, said Twiss.

He did not provide his own vessel to take divers to the site quickly because it was agreed to use the barge and because it was necessary to moor the craft. Job Organisation

The inadequacy of organisation of the job was such that at one stage the job was in chaos, said Twiss. He blamed Canterbury Pipelines for this. He did not remember making a reference to important work elsewhere and saying that he was not prepared to accept standby rates. The only time that he mentioned any possibility of his not finishing the job was when his accounts were not being paid and he was unable to pay his divers, Twiss said. He denied threatening not to carry on the work if his demands were not met.

Re-examined by Mr Kearney, the witness, Twiss said that it was never suggested that he provide alternative transport to the diving site.

Between January 12 and 18 < because they had been work- 1 ing under directions in the surf area very close into the i beach all the divers were in i a very bad state of health ' because they were working 1 at the time in raw sewage. 1 They were coming out in < rashes and boils, and it was < decided that they should have : one week’s holiday to try to i recover from these effects. Consultant’s Evidence ! James Forbes, a marine ( consultant, of Auckland, said f he was first consulted on the ( Gisborne sewer outfall scheme in 1964. He first heard j of Twiss and his company < when he received a business f card from Twiss through the < defendant company. i Another diver tendered a sum of £lO for the first hour 1

each day and £1 10s an hour thereafter, said witness. He was present when the manner of entrenching the pipeline was put forward by Twiss. It was generally wenreceived. It appeared as though the defendant had no other plans. He had previous experience of Twiss’s work as a diver said the witness, and he had been efficient. Referring to a demonstration of the machine he said he felt representatives of the company shared his belief that the machine was an excellent one. The words “on the job and in the water” meant to him that when plaintiff was on the wharf ready to go to the scene he was on the job, said witness. The hearing was adjourned till tomorrow.