In this connection a Court of Appeal decision in March 2010 is an authoritative judicial precedent upholding and applying the legal principle that such a body owes a duty of care to persons affected by its performance or non-performance of its statutory functions, such as could be a cause of action for damages in the event of negligence on the part of that body. The case was reported in The Times newspaper on 29 March 2010 headed Council failed in duty to school head: Court of Appeal: Connor v Surrey County Council.)

In the course of the Court's reserved judgment dismissing the public authority's appeal it was said: "The standard tests of legality, rationality and fairness had to be met as they applied to the use of the public law power in the particular case. The principle in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture ([1968] AC 997) was in point where the question was whether public law powers could lawfully be used for a seemingly collateral end, here the fulfilment of a private law duty of care." (Lord Justice Laws)

The claimant was a head teacher, the defendant was Surrey County Council. The issue concerned the effect of legislation when determining the council’s duty of care (viz., sections 14 and 16A of the School Standards and Frameworks Act 1998, as amended by the Education Acts of 2002 and 2005 and the Education and Inspections Act 2006).

The case is obviously distinguishable on the facts and circumstances from the doings of the ARB, but its relevance is unmistakable. Inquirers and policy-makers may need to take this into account* (as well as persons offered appointment to the ARB "by the Privy Council, after consultation with the Secretary of State and such other persons or bodies as the Privy Council thinks fit, to represent the interests of users of architectural services and the general public"; or its PCC: see Arb web pages a) giving notice of vacancies to the chair(s) of the PCC and application form or, if unavailable, cached copies of the same  - Vacancies; Form).