Architect Can Claim Lien For Fees

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 840, 7 December 1929, Page 15

Architect Can Claim Lien For Fees

JUDGE BLAIR’S DECISION

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT

An architect’s right to claim a lien on his employer's property, under the Wages Protection and Contractors’ Liens Act, to protect fees owing him, was upheld by Mr. Justice Blair in a reserved decision delivered today. The judgment is important in view of the fact that up till now there has been no decision on this point in New Zealand, but the judge considers there is no logical reason why an architect should not be covered by the provisions of the Act, and apart from that, there are American authorities

which recognise claims under similar provisions. The issue was raised on a summons by E. C. Laurie, Ltd., in liquidation, to set aside or stay proceedings started in the Magistrate’s Court by Frederick William Brown, an architect, for a lien for £lO9 for professional fees and for supervising the re-erection of the firm’s building. The defendant’s contention that an architect was not covered by the Wages Protection and Contractors’ Liens Act was dealt with by his Honour, who gave an interesting definition of “work” in relation to the duties of a contractor, under which the architect claimed the protection of the Act.

“It would require courage, if not temerity, to suggest today that the word ‘work’ is confined to manual labour only,” said his Honour. “An architect in designing and superintending the erection of a building unquestionably performs work, although the result it attained mainly by the brain, and the manual element, is negligible. The use of the words ‘work or labour’ in the definition clearly contemplates work which is not manual. In many cases the contractor for a building confines the whole of his time in the execution of a building contract to supervision only, but it has never yet been suggested that building cannot be the subject of lien proceedings because such services are not ‘work’ within the meaning of section 48 of the Act.” The second point raised was that, under section 244 of the Companies Act, the architect could not proceed against the firm in liquidation, without leave of the court, and on this his Honour said the important issue was whether this clause had any application to proceedings under the Wage 3 Protection and Contractors’ Liens Act. The judge did not think that the commencement of proceedings for a lien against the firm in liquidation without leave made the action void and, in any case, if necessary, he would grant leave in this case. T’he summons was dismissed.