The Workmen's Lien Act

Southland Times, Issue 19227, 14 December 1903, Page 4

The Workmen's Lien Act

The Stipendiary Magistrate was engaged two days last week hearing claims under the Contractors' and Workmen's Lien Act, 1892, against John McNab, the claims having arisen out of a contract . to build' a residence at One Tree i J oint, i by Alex. Menzies. The matter was before the court on a previous occasion, when the magistrate reiusect to give judgment on any of the sub-contractors claims till all were laid before him. l he folio-wing claims were now in lor adjudication :-W. Smith and Co., woodwure. JJS7 7s Yd (Mr \V. iUicaltster) ; H. v. 88 ',£&?; -s? aa^ l^- is 10s lUr tL. Macdonald) ; Southland feuwiTilling Co., timber, £115 3a ad (Mr W. Macalister;. Mr Watson appeared on behalf of John McNab. Kvidence was given by the architect C. Brodrick, from which it appeared that the contract price for the house was £1450 The contractor had been unable to complete the contract and it had been taken over by the employer, and completed at the risk of the contractor. lho contractor was entitled to progress payments up to 73 per cent. of tho work done. When the contractor had stopped work he had received £11100 on the architect's certificates. This meant, assuininc that the contractor was not overpaid, that the value of tho work and material on the ground when McNab took it over wus £1333 Gs Bel. lbe contract was completed in accordance with the specifications, and cost McNab i.33-1. evidence was given •by the respective Cl Mr Ql Ma 8 calister said that there were three questions which were common to most of the claims, tho nrst and most important being the extent oi Mc^ib s liability The total amount of the claims was £410, and McNab was only prepared to pay iiiOG, contending that his total liability under tb,e contract was £1450. He had acted with perfect, good faith all through, but if hia contention prevailed, the odd result would appear that he was getting a building embodying work 1 and material to the value of £16G7 for £1450, the loss being borne Ijv the sub-contractors and this by virtue of an Act of Parliament passed expressly to make better provision for se£urin« the payment due to contractors and workmen. Counsel r.-n«i on section 12 of the Act, which rrqui'-.HJ ih> employer to retain in his ham* oue-fou th part of the money liable under the contract for 31 days after the comple- * tion of the work. McNab was estopped Iron contending that he had in his hands for the purpose of satisfy ing : these claims less than one-fourth of 4.1430. The second point was whether the claimants were entitled under the Act to a charge for materials supplied, and counsel 4 submitted that if the material is supplied, oven out of a slock, for the particular work, it may be the subject of a lien or charge, and interred to a recent Court of Appeal decision in re Williams. "Work," under the A? 1 ; " shall include the supply of material used or brought on the premises, to be used in connection with the work. Ihe \ third question was as to when proceedings to refuse the charge must bo commenced. Tho Act required such procoedintrs to be commenced withm (>0 days after the completion of the work in respect of which the charge is claimed and counsel contended that the work oi a BUt)-Contractor is not completed till it is finally passed by the architect an^d the sub-contractor released. At anytime before that a sub-contractor may be called upon to remedy any defect or to makt good any material rejected The contract was completed on 14th November, and sub-contractors had therefore 30 .days from that date within which to give notice of their claims, and dp days withm which to commence proceedings Counsel for the other claimants followed on similar line.. Mr Longuet contending that the intention of the Lwrislatuio was that tho subcontracts shoul .l c deemed to be completed at the date of the completion of the principal contract, . and with this in view the employer was required to keep on hand one-fourth oi tne contract price for HI days, so _as to pive sub-contractors an opportunity o! giving notice of claims at any time within 30 days from the completion oi the C °Mr ra Watson combattoil the arguments adduced r-n Hehalf of tho claimants contending that the Act littvo nn rijrht tn a charge for materials supplied . out n stock He admitted that the decision oi the Appeal Court in ro Williams seemed to be against him. lie argued that the claims were void, proceedings not haunK been commenced within fiO days after the completion of the work by which was meant the work of the sub-coinracts MrNab had paid no moneys after having icceived tho first notice of charge. He had a. right to set off. as against the claimants? moneys expended in completing the C0 Th r c a Magistrate said that he would take time to consider the questions raised. Tho case was watched with interest by a number of contractors, and is of general taportanco to those engaged In the building trade