ARCHITECT'S FEES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20620, 19 July 1930, Page 14

ARCHITECT'S FEES.

SYSTEM OF CHARGING

PAYKEL'S BUILDINGS CASE

A "DISTASTEFUL" COMMISSION

Tho hearing of the claim of Edmund I Rupert Morton, architect (Mr. Finlay), | against Max Paykel Buildings, Limited I (Mr. Norlhcroft), for £SBB, 1 ialance of architect's fees alleged to be duo, was | continued before Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court yesterday. Plaintiff had been engaged to report on the work of tho original architect of the buildings, and to assist the defendant in preparing a legal case in connection with certain litigation He made a charge of £IOO as nn inspection and reporting fee. and £663 for pro fessional services extending over 369 hours at £l2 12s a day. Tho defendant claimed that he had paid plaintiff £.350 for his services, and that this was ample remuneration. Re-examined by Mr. Finlay, plaintiff i denied that in examining and reporting on J the woik of tho architect of Paykel's J Buildings, lie had been actuated bv anv | personal feeling against the architect. In I the earlier stages of the negotiations the j architect, Mr Patterson, did not object | to meet with him but later tie refused to igo round the buildings with plaintiff. He had had to postpone other work because of the demands made on his time bv Mr Paykel. In 1929 he was building a wool- • store for Mr. Paykel at a cost of over 1 £.18.000. fie never had a disagreement, with him Plaintiff's Report Commended. Evidence that he had checked through I tho plaintiff'.? report on Paykel's Buildings by request, and had found it. very fair j and thoroughly accurals, was given by ! A. L. Robertson, property surveyor, of Wellington. He had become "sick to death" of attending conferences about Paykel's Buildings. He had kept a record 1 and had a substantial claim Mr. Paykel j was frequently warned that the costs of the action wore getting extraordinary. Mr. Paykel was insistent on having Mr. Morton present at these meetings. Mr Finlay: Is it an easy matter to sheet home negligence to an architect ? Witness: It certainly is not. It was in this case. I reckon. \\ itnes.? said he rareiv heard of an architect charging less than £lO 10s a day, and j sometimes they charged as much as £3 3s jan hour. Matters taken into consideration j were the standing of the architect, (he J nature of the dispute and the time occuI pied. Witness was claiming £lO 10s a day for work done in Auckland, and £7 7s a day for work in Wellington. Arthur I. Mitchell, draughtsman, in the employ ot Mr. Morton, gave evidence that during 1920 and 1929 he had received a great number of telephone messages for Mi. Morton from Mr. Pavkel. The rings were so frequent that eventually everv time the telephone went ho thought it was Mr. Paykel. Thirty Guineas a Day. Herbert W. Savage, architect of 16 years' experience in Auckland, gave expert evidence on the subject of architects' fees. He said that an architect charged for the amount of time involved, and he would also consider the nature of the work. There was no fixed fee for such work as that in question. The Institute of Architects allowed a minimum of £5 5s for any consultation whatever and fees of £lO 10s, £2l and up to £3l 10s ! a day had been allowed.

In cross-examination, witness said that if an architect spent time at night over his work he would he entitled to charge at a higher rate than for day work. "The profession floes not like cases'of this sort," said witness. '"J'hev are distasteful. They bring about hard feelings and 1 think the architect is entitled to some thing in consideration of that in his fees. Litigation is not a pleasant thing from an architect's point of view. There are plenty of architects in (his town who would not take certain work at 30 guineas a day. Mr. Northcroft: I believe you yourself were invited and declined to undertake this particular work ? Witness: That is so. Mr. NorthcrofL: The only architect in this town who would accept it was Mr. Morton?—ls that so?

Mr. Northcroft: It is so. Mr. Morton has told us so.

His Honor (smiling) : He might be en titled to a scarcity pricrj for his services. Mr. Northcroft: It may be, sir, that we were driven into a poorer market. The Defendant' 3 Case. Mr. Northcroft said the defendant was only concerned with the amount of the charge and wotdd not object to whatever His Honor considered was reasonable. Ho suggested that had thoso charges been compiled with the clear knowledge that the present defendant, and he alone, would have to meet them, they would have been on a much smaller basis. The reasons why they were presented on an exaggerated basis was because plaintiff knew they were to be subject to review and because lie was actuated by extreme hostility to the architect who was the defendant in the former proceedings. It was Mr. Morton's hostility that explained the inordinate amount of time ho had spent over this matter.

Counsel contended that Mr. Morton thrust himself into the proceedings on many occasions when there was no need for him to do so. Counsel indicated that Mr. Morton's evidence would he contradicted in many particulars and claimed that lie was seeking to take a very in decent, advantage first of his brother professional and then of his employer. Max Paykel, merchant and managing director of Max Paykel Buildings, Ltd., said ho had been anxious about tho building because it was not waterproof. Ilr was dissatisfied with the attitude of the architect about this and approached Mr. Morton to act as adviser. Asked about his fee, Mr. Morton said it, would be 11100 to a stranger, but nothing like so much to witness. Mr. Morton often himself volunteered to attend interviews between witness and his solicitor, Mr. Ximan, but witness had no idea he was to be charged for this. The hearing was adjourned until Mon day morning.