SANITARY PLUMBING WORK

Taranaki Daily News, 6 December 1929, Page 13

SANITARY PLUMBING WORK

POSITION OF A CONTRACTOR

CAN EMPLOY REGISTERED MAN,

APPEAL BY DEPARTMENT FAILS.

An important judgment affecting plumbers was given by Mr. Justice MacGregor at New Plymouth yesterday, when he dismissed the appeal of the Health Department against the decision of the Magistrate that Sydney George, an unregistered plumber, had not committed an offence when he employed a registered plumber to do sanitary plumbing involved in a sub-contract he had secured at Waitara.

The appellant, Fred Swindells, an inspector under the department, was represented by Mr. C. H. Weston. Mr. A. A. Bennett appeared for George. Tlie short point for the judge, said Mr. Weston, was whether George, on the facts disclosed, had engaged in the trade of sanitary plumbing contrary to section 20 of the Plumbers Registration Act, 1912. That section read: “(1) Every person who does, or knowingly employs or permits any person to do any sarii- | tary plumbing in breach of this Act, or °f any regulations made thereunder, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding

£10; (2) every person is liable to fine not exceeding £2O who, not - being registered, engages in the trade of sanitary plumbing contrary to any regulations made under this Act, or who takes, or uses, or exhibits the name, or title, or description of a registered- plumber. .. . or any name, title, or sign calculated to induce the belief that he is registered.” George took a sub-contract from Wickham, a builder, to install waterclosets and a septic tank, and to do drainag- and plumbing work. It was admitted that he did not actually do any of the sanitary plumbing work himself, but employed a registered plumb-

er and a drain-layer. All he did was to dig the pit and concrete it. Th< magistrate held that because the sani tary plumbing work was done by a re gist.red plumber and not by George him self, he did not commit a breach of sub section 2, and did not carry on the trade of sanitary plumbing contrary to the provisions of the Act. A BROADER INTERPRETATION. Counsel argued, however, that a much broader interpretation should be placoe] on sub-section 2 than that of the magistrate. The offences under the respective sub-sections were different.

His Honour: Supposing the head contractor had employed the qualified plumber, would he have been guilty under sub-section 2?

Counsel submitted that the section was intended to apply to the man who set himself o t as being in business as a sanitary plumber. His Honour said it was far-reaching

to say that an ordinary contractor who took a contract from a builder and employed a registered plumber committed an offence.

It was pointed out that the Waitara borough was one of the districts in which regulation 8 of the gazetted regulations under the Plumbers Registration Act prohibited sanitary plumbing except by regie! red persons. His Eon ur: Supposing Waitara were not a registered district, what would be the position then? Mr. Weston; Then anyone could do sanitary plumbing.

His Honour considered the Statute was drafted in an extraordinary manner.

Mr. Weston submitted that whereas sub-section 1 was designed to catch the unregistered plumber who actually did the work, stib-section 2 should be interpreted widely to mean that it was there to catch the proprietor of a plumbing business who was not a registered plumber and contracted to do sanitary plumbing. It would be inferred that George had to have an intimate knowledge of sanitary plumbing if he were to carry out his contract to conform with the Act, a I it followed logically that he held himself out to the public as possessing the knowledge.

Mr. Bennett: There is no evidence of that.

Mr. Weston: But it may be fairly inferred. His Honour: But if the head contractor had employed the sanitary plumber, the head contractor would not have been holding himself out as. a sanitary plumber.

NO SPECIFIC OFFENCE.

His Honour said it was most curious that, though it was implied throughout, it was not specifically stated anywhere in the regulations that any person not being a registered plumber who did sanitary plumbing committed an offence. Mr. Weston drew attention to subsection 1 that all sanitary plumbing work must be done by a person registered under the Act. His Honour observed that that rather supported the Magistrate’s decision. He supposed the object of the Act was to protect the public health by ensuring that all sanitary plumbing was done by a registered plumber. “And that was what was done in this case,” he added. Mr. Weston contended that the person -who took a substantial part in the contract must himself be a recognised sanitary plumber. It must be inferred from the case that George was responsible to a certain extent, as he had to know whether the man he engaged was properly qualified and si*'lied, and he had to see that the work was properly done.

His Honour: And if the employer were a limited liability company? Counsel: Then the foreman must be registered. The department is satisfied in that case.

His Honour: So if George became George, Ltd., he would not be liable? Mr. Weston maintained that if a man held himself out to take contracts for sanitary plumbing he must be a registered plumber himself. It was submitted that in accepting this contract George was engaging in the trade of sanitary plumbing.

Mr. Benwett submitted it was no

offence under subsection 2 of section 20 to “engage in the trade,” unless it was in breach of the regulations prohibiting an unregistered plumber doing the sanitary work. It was clear that in this instance the whole of the sanitary work had been done by a registered plumber. According to the department’s contention, every building contractor who contracted to build a house including sanitary fittings committed a breach of the section.

He would go further and say that, on Mr. Weston’s interpretation every plumbing company that was a limited liability company committed an offence even though it employed a registered f 'reman, and that the same position applied to a partnership in which one of the partners was not a registered plumber. Such a thing was never intended by the Act. Before it could be so construed it. must be clearly and unequivocably stated. This was a penal Statute, and had to be interpreted strictly, and George was entitled to the benefit if there were any doubt whether the facts came within the penal section.

HAD LOOKED IN VAIN.

In giving judgment, his Honour said he had looked in vain in the Regus and Statute for a specific statement of offences. It was only hinted at in regulation 1, which said: “The districts within which no sanitary plumbing may be done except by persons registered under the said are, are. ..” The Act itself provided penalties for “any sanitary plumbing vzork in breach of this Act or. any regulations made thereunder.” It was true that Waitara was in the schedule of proclaimed districts, and that George was therefore brought within the scope of the regulations for what they were worth. But he himsell had not done the sanitary work or any part of it, and his Honour thought the magistrate was right when he held that Gecge had not brought himself under sub-section 2. The object of the Act was quite clearly to ensure that in proclaimed districts sanitary plumbing was to be done by registered plumbers. This was quite right, but in this case all the sanitary plumbing was done by a regis' red man, and George had nothing to do with it, and had confined himself to other plumbing work. The appeal would be dismissed with costs of £7 7s. to George, the respondent.