Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
By reason of these matters, the official referee stated he had come to the conclusion, not
without some hesitation, that, by producing that so-called valuation, H obstructed the issue
of the 'sort of certificate' the appellants were entitled to and, consequently, they could deter-
mine their employment under clause 20.
The Court of Appeal allowed the respondents' appeal. Denning LJ, I think, assumed without
deciding that H's acts and omissions amounted to obstruction or interference, but held that
the respondents were not liable for the acts of the surveyor within the sphere of duties assigned
to him under the contract. Morris LJ considered the respondents not liable because H was
employed as an independent consultant not subject to their control. He refers to him 'conduct-
ing himself erroneously', but expresses no view whether such erroneous conduct constituted
obstruction or interference with the issue of a certificate. Parker LJ said he was prepared to
accept that H was guilty of interference or obstruction, but absolved the respondents from
responsibility on grounds similar to those expressed by Denning LJ.
His lordship continued in the words set out on p. 220, and went on:
My Lords, one of the difficulties of this case as it has come to this House is that your Lordships
do not yet know whether or not there had been over-payments on previous certificates, and
whether, in fact, any sum was due when certificate No. 21 was issued. An interlocutory order
was made, by consent, postponing the ascertainment of these figures until after the decision
on obstruction. It would be a curious result if your Lordships were to hold that the issue of
'the sort of certificate' to which the appellants were entitled has been obstructed or interfered
with so as to justify their determining the contract, if it should eventually be found that they
were not at the date of the certificate entitled to any payment.
These considerations tend to confirm me in the view that errors due to negligent valuation
were never intended to give rise to the remedy afforded to the appellants by clause 20, but fall
to be dealt with only by arbitration under clause 27. Holding as I do that the acts and omis-
sions found against H do not amount to obstruction or interference within clause 20, it follows
that the letter from the town clerk of 29 October 1951, in which he asserted that a proper valu-
ation executed strictly in accordance with the contract had been made, cannot of itself con-
stitute obstruction although, in fact, the valuation was not correct or properly made.
For these reasons I would dismiss the appeal.
Canterbury Pipe Lines Ltd v. Christchurch Drainage Board
COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
(1979) 16 BLR 76
The facts sufficiently emerge from the judgment of Cooke and Woodhouse JJ delivered
by Cooke J. (McMullin J delivered a separate judgment differing on some points).
COOKE J: Nineteen years ago, on 27 April 1960, the Christchurch Drainage Board accepted the
tender of Canterbury Pipe Lines Limited for the laying of about 63 chains of sewer pipes in
the Sparks Road area and incidental work. Subject to variations or extras, the contract price
was £29,228 (omitting shillings and pence). The specified date for the completion of the works
