ARCHITECT’S CLAIM

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1028, 19 July 1930, Page 1

ARCHITECT’S CLAIM

DISPUTE OVER BALANCE OF FEES SUM OF £SBB INVOLVED The claim by an Auckland architect. Edmund Rupert Morton, for £SBB. balance of fees allegedly due for professional services, against the Paykel Buildings, Limited, was continued before Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. The defendant contended that the £350 he had paid plaintiff for his ser-*' vices was ample remuneration. Mr. Finlay appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Nortlicroft for the defendant. On the subject of architects’ fees for this class of work. Herbert \V. Savage, architect, said that the Institute of Architects allowed £5 5s for any consultation whatever, and fees of £lO 10s, £2l and £& 10s were allowed for other services. Under crosg«*xamination witness said that the profession did not kike this type of case, which were distasteful. Witness said that he had been approached to accept the work, but had declined it. SMALLER BASIS?

For the defence, Mr. Northcroft contended that had the charges been compiled in the knowledge that the defendant would have to meet them, they would have been on a smaller basis. The reasons why the charges were presented on an exaggerated basis was , because plaintiff knew they were to be subject to review and because he 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 amoiint of time he 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 be contradicted in many particulars and claimed that he was seeking to take a very indecent advantage first of his brother professional and then of his employer. Max Paykel. merchant and managing director of Max Paykel Buildings. Ltd., said he had been anxious about the building because it was not waterproof. He 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 £ 100 to a stranger, but nothing like so much to witness. Mr. Morton often himself volunteered to attend interviews between witness and his solicitor. Mr. Ziman, but witness had no idea he was to be charged for this. The hearing was adjourned until Monday.