under his notice, as he does the condition of his own premises,
c. o f a .
the position is altogether different. If the condition of this stop-
^ 9 ^
cock box were brought under the notice of the society, and they
Birch
V.
failed to repair it after that notice, I think that they would be
Thf.
liaVde.In that case there would be not a mere nonfeasance but a Australian-
Mutual
neglect of duty.But in this ca.se there was no evidence that the P rovide.nt
.Society.
condition of the box was brought under the notice of the society
and therefore there was no negligence. Nor does there seem to
O’C onnor J .
me to be any evidence which would justify the Court in dis turbing tlie 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 theiiiselves of the condition of the fittings.
Under these circumstances I agree that the action is not
maintainable, and that the appeal must fail.
Appeal (Vmnim’d tvifh costs.
Solicitors, for the appellants. Levy tfc Fidton.
Solicitors, for the respondents, Stephen, Jaqae.s if- Stephen.
Solicitor, for the Board of Water Supply and Sewerage, inter
vening, JI. S. Williams.
Foil Concrere
TrimisvMma
d . .
Constructions
(1999) 16 BCL
Foil Concrete Group Ltd \ D
288
Constructions VP
UBCL 168
COURT OF
A U STR A LIA .]
LIEBE .
A p p e l l a n t ;
Pl.AINTlFF,
MOLLOY .
R e s p o n d e n t .
1 ) e f e n d a n t .
H.
C. OF A.
1906.
ON a p p e a l f r o m t h e s u p r e m e c o u r t
o f
W E S T E R N
A U STR A LIA .
P e r t h ,
Oct. 26, 29.
Special case submitted by arbilratoi— Arbitration Act1895 ( W .A.), (59 UiW. So . 13),
secs. 9 (5), 12—Power to draw inferences o f fa c t— Remitting incomplete award— Griffiths C.J.,
“ E.xtras ”—Employer, architect and contractor.
mjg?nsTj!
348 HIGH COUHT
[1906.
H.
C. OF A.It was stipulated iu a building contract that no extra works beyond those
1906.
included in the contrac t should be allowed or paid for w ithout an order in writ ing from tlie employer and architect ; the specification contained a similar
Liebe
provision.
The contractor executed a number of works ; some were upon
V.
writ ten orders signed by the architect , expres.sed to he a t the employer’s direc tion, bu t not signed by him. A dispute having arisen upon a claim made by the contractor for the price of the extras, the m atters in dispute were referred to arb itra tors , and, tliey…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Liebe v Molloy
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Liebe v Molloy [1906] HCA 67
Case
[1906] HCA 67
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Liebe v Molloy*, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia considered an appeal concerning an architect's claim for fees against a building owner. The dispute arose from an agreement for architectural services, where the architect had provided plans and specifications for a building. The owner subsequently engaged a contractor to construct the building based on these plans. The core of the disagreement lay in whether the architect was entitled to the full amount of his agreed fee, or if certain deductions were permissible due to alleged deficiencies in the plans.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the architect had fulfilled his contractual obligations to the owner. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the plans and specifications provided by the architect were sufficient and accurate for the purpose of constructing the building, and if any alleged defects in those plans constituted a breach of contract that would entitle the owner to withhold part of the architect's fees. The Court also considered the extent to which an architect's duty of care extended to ensuring the contractor's work was performed in accordance with the plans.
The Court reasoned that the architect's primary obligation was to provide competent and suitable plans and specifications. It was held that the architect was entitled to his full fee, as the evidence did not establish that the plans were fundamentally flawed or that the architect had breached his duty of care. The Court found that any issues that arose during construction were more attributable to the contractor's execution of the work rather than inherent defects in the architect's design. The principles applied centred on the contractual obligations of an architect and the standard of care expected in the provision of architectural services.