DISPUTE ABOUT BUILDING

Southland Times, Issue 24446, 28 May 1941, Page 7

DISPUTE ABOUT BUILDING

Complicated Case Before Court

An action which a witness described as one of the most complicated building cases which had ever occurred m New Zealand was begun in the Supreme Court before his Honour Mr Justice Kennedy yesterday. The case originated through a large claim mad for extras by the contractors ot Southland Building Society s building in Tay street. The claim was referred to arbitrators and the action before court was a motion by the contractor to remove the arbitrators. The arbitrators in turn moved for an extension o time for them to make their award. The contractors, Andrew Lyon Divert Keen and Cecil Arthur Daily, sought an order that the arbitrators, Lachlan Gray and Gorton Russell Stone be removed on the following S r ° U j S A “That they have misconducted tne proceedings by refusing to hear evidence which Keen and Daily wished to call in support of their case; that they have improperly conducted paits of the proceedings by receiving certain evidence in the absence of Keen and Daily; that they have adjudicated upon certain parts of the claims made by Keen and Daily without giving Keen and Daily an opportunity of being heard before such adjudication; that they have conducted the proceedings in a loose and informal manner and without regard to the rules of evidence, that they have failed to give due and reasonable notice to Keen ana Daily ot the hearing of the arbitration proceedings; that Stone concurred in the appointment of an umpire hostile to and against the express instructions ot Keen and Daily.” The arbitrators asked the court, to make an order that the time limited for the arbitrators to make their award be enlarged to a date being one calendar month from the date of the order of the court. Mr Gordon J. Reed appeared for the contractors and Mr H. J. Macalister for the arbitrators. It was stated that the contractors had made a large claim for extras in the construction of the building. By agreement, the matter was referred to arbitration. The contractors had become dissatisfied and were seeking to have the arbitrators removed or the whole matter withdrawn from arbitration.! In his opening for the defence, after evidence had been given for the contractors, Mr Macalister said the arbitration had been conducted in the manner contemplated and agreed on by the parties. The contractors admitted that the arbitrators were competent and they did not question the integrity or impartiality- of the arbitrators. The fullest opportunity had been given the contractors to submit any evidence they wished. It appeared that the contractors had gained the impression that the arbitration was going against them and they now wished to get out of it. The hearing had not been completed when the court rose last evening.