MORROW AND ANOTHER V. MANNING 35/1932

Movrow arc nov

V Mananin | heean a

on

Ketierd 15 Nov 922

oth

MORROW and another vy, MANNING

53 7 . STABKE, DIXON, AND EVATT JJ. '

The respondent employed the appellants as architects te prepare Plans. and specifications for a large building in Sydney and to supervise its erection. During the course of the work differences arose with the Fa econtractcr which were ultimately submitted to arbitration. The arbitra~" tors by their award founc that in addition to an amount of £49,500 al- ready paid to the contractor under the appellants! prozress certificates, there was payable by the respondent to the contractor a valange of £2,606 = 13 - Lid., of which £535-3-24. might be withheld as rotention moneys for a speca fied period. In the arbitration various claims for allowances were submitted by the respondent cn the ground of defective work by the con- i tractor or failure to comply with the specifications, and in arriving at their award these were considered by the arbitrators, who communtegsoa tay the parties to the reference their decision upon each item. The 'respondent however, appears to have been dissatisfied with the condition of the building, and would not pay the architects, the appellants, the unpaid balance of their remuneration, When the appellants sued him in the Supreme | Court of New South Wales for their fees, he filed, as well as a plea of never indebted, pleas by way of cross action alleging that the appellants,

as architects, had been negligent in the preparation of plans specifications

and bills of quantities and in supervision. The action was tried as a :

commercial cause without a jury by Halse Rogers J., who gave judgment fer | the appellants upon the action and cross action. Spon apreal to the Full Court consisting of James, Davidson and Stephen JJ., this judgment upon the cross action was reversed ag to three items of negligence with respect to which the Full Court entered judgment upon the cross action for the sum Of £1,100. The juigment for the appellants upon the claim in the ac- t tion was affirmed, and also uvon other items of negligence in the cross action. From the judgment of the Full Court the arpellants, the architects, now appeal to this Court; the resnondent algo cross appeals in respéct of two of the items in referhoe to which the Full Court upheld the judgment of Halse Regers J.