A CONTRACTING DISPUTE.

Feilding Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2320, 26 March 1914, Page 3

A CONTRACTING DISPUTE.

Yesterday afternoon. Mr J. AY. Poynton, S.M., decided an important point raised by Mr B. E. Murphy, who acted on behalf of defendants m a claim by R. Heald. for whom Mr Ongley appeared, against the Presbyterian Church Trustees for £9, the amount deducted by the architect from moneys alleged to be due for the erection of tlie Presbyterian Manse. Mr Murphy applied for a stay of proceedings., and argued that the case should have come under the clause of the contract stipulating that all disimtcs would be referred to arbitration. He pleaded that the ar- j bitration clause of the contract ousted the jurisdiction of the Court and I deprived the plaintiff of civil law rights. Mr Ongley opposed these con- ' tentions, arguing that the arbitration > clause, referred only to disputes about the construction of the building or tlie adiustment of extras after signing of the contract. In this case, the original nlans <were amended and adjustments made, and plaintiff signed a contract on the basis of the amended plans. He considered that even if the architect had made an error the contract price could not be varied, except by mutual consent Plaintiff contended that the claim had been-allowed a.s a set off in adjusting, and the whole amount oi contract money was due, and that any claim for adjustments on the signed contract could not be recognised and the claim constituted the amount deducted by the architect cm the conmletion of the work. It was | made clear that the Church trustees were nominal defendants only, that the dispute was really between the builder "and architect, and that tho trustees were prepared to pay what was considered due by the arbitratioiiists or the Court. His AVorship ruled that the arbitration clause did nob apply in this ease, and, after hearing evidence, gave judgment for amount claimed and costs.