Liebe v Molloy [1906] HCA 67

4C.L.R.) OF AUSIRALIA. 347

under his notice, as he does the condition of his own premises, H. U. oF A. the position is altogether different. If the condition of this stop- 10%, cock box were brought under the notice of the society, and they Brois failed to repair it after that notice, I think that they would be ter! liable. In that case there would be not a mere nonfeasance but a Aner neglect of duty. But in this case there was no evidence that the Provivext condition of the box was brought under the notice of the society acted and therefore there was no negligence. Nor does there RO. 4° me to be any evidence which would justify the Court in dis- turbing the finding of the jury, if we were asked to do so, that there was no neglect of duty on the part of the society in not informing themselves of the condition of the fittings.

Under these circumstances I agree that the action is not

maintainable, and that the appeal must fail.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Solicitors, for the appellants, Levy & Fulton.

Solicitors, for the respondents, Stephen, Jaques & Stephen.

Solicitor, for the Board of Water Supply and Sewerage, inter- vening, H. S. eens

= Ell Conroe Grawplid 5

grams Fan Herts

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

LIEBE 4 . ss ¢ ? . ) . APPELLANT; PLAINTIFF, 4 AND MOLLOY . 4s F x . : RESPONDENT. 1 DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

Special case submitted by arbitrator—Arbitration Act 1895 (W.A.), (59 Viet. No. 13),

secs, 9 (b), 12—Power to draw inferences of fact—Remitting incomplete award—_ Griffiths C.J.,

«© Bxtras"—Employer, architect and contractor. a

H.C, or A. 1906.

LIEBE v. Mouoy.

HIGH COURT [1906.

It was stipulated in a building contract that no extra works beyond those included in the contract should be allowed or paid for without an order in writing from the employer and architect ; the specification contained a similar provision, 'The contractor executed a number of works ; some were upon written orders signed by the architect, expressed to be at the employer's direc- tion, but not signed by him, A dispute having arisen upon a claim made by the contractor for the price of the extras, the matters in dispute were referred to arbitrators, and, they having disagreed, to an umpire, who stated a case for the opinion of the Court under the Arbitration Act 1895. There was a tinding of fact that the written orders were not indorsed by the employer, but that he had such knowledge of those extras as might be fairly inferred from the fact that he was constantly on the works and took an active interest in them,