Contents

- Judicial interpretation relating to Part III : some useful guidance on the meaning of "standards", "serious" and "unacceptable".

- Discipline and questionable PCC decisions : powers, duties and criticisms of the PCC.

- Case Study 1 : procedural irregularities and two perverse decisions in consideration of charges brought under Code Standard 8.

- Case Study 2 (Part 1)  : a similar case, involving the apprehension of a real possibility of bias.

- Case Study 2 (continued - Part 2) : the PCC decide – and a question of incongruity arises. 

- Note on Part III of the Architects Act 1997 - should the legislation be further amended to save the Board from the charge of jactitation of power?

- Case Study 2 (continued - Part 3) - QC advises that the architect has an obvious and complete defence.

- Case Study 2 (continued - Part 4) - "Judicial nonsense".

- Case Study 2 (continued - Part 5) - A Court decision in favour of the architect.

- Case Study 2 (continued - Parts 6, 7 and 8) - (6) The Court rules architect's application for judicial review "plainly justified" - 14 October 2008; (7) the case is remitted by Consent Order of the High Court - 21 August 2009; and (8) the proceedings are withdrawn - 7 April 2010.

- Case Study 2 (continued - Parts 9 and 10) - Report on outcome of proceedings.

- Case Study 2 (continued - Part 11) - How the Board deals with the result.

 Case Study 2 (continued - Part 12) - ARB misclaims "new evidence".

 Case Study 2 (continued - Part 13) - New Guidance - December 2010.

(6) Judicial review "plainly justified"

The Court has ruled that the application of the architect (I— S—) raises issues which "plainly justify" the grant of permission for judicial review.  The submissions which had been made by the ARB to oppose the architect's application failed.  When giving this ruling the judge (Mr Justice Munby) added that the case was not suitable for hearing by a Deputy High Court Judge.  A date for a hearing is now fixed for 15 July 2009.  Pending the outcome, the PCC proceedings will remain adjourned.

(7) Consent Order dated 21 August 2009 (once again in favour of the architect)

On 21 August 2009, by consent, the High Court ordered that the PCC's decision of 9 June 2009 be quashed, also ordering that the case be remitted to a newly constituted committee, so as to consider the architect's legal submissions, those being: (1) breach of natural justice / fairness; (2) the vires of the requirement to hold PII; (3) what may constitute professional misconduct; and (4) whether the claimant was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct.  It was further ordered that the Board pay the architect's costs of £13,000.

(8) The proceedings before the PCC are withdrawn

At a hearing of the PCC on 7 April 2010, the ARB proceedings were (by consent of the architect) publicly withdrawn to comply with the High Court ruling against the Board in August 2009. On behalf of the Board it has been acknowledged, in effect, that the charge should not have been commenced or continued.

The architect's own comment may be read here.

[ top]