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.

- 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October 2008; (7) the case is remitted by Consent Order of the High Court - 21 August 2009; and (8) the proceedings are withdrawn - 7 April 2010.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.

Case Study 2, Part 1

Another case concerns a charge of unacceptable professional conduct made against an architect who has since 2001 refused to comply with the Board's demand for evidence of professional  indemnity insurance.  The accused architect, being concerned with the train of similar cases which the PCC had decided without proper consideration of section 13(4)(a) of the Act, made application on 27 March 2007 to the PCC that the case against him be adjourned unless it could be heard by a Professional Conduct Committee comprised of persons without any involvement in the formulation, establishment, revision or promulgation of the Board's Code Standard 8.  This categorisation was said to include any PCC member who had previously decided cases of this kind.  The application, here reproduced, was decided a month later (see " A question of Incongruity") .

Earlier, in what observers present described as being a difficult meeting (5 December 2006), the same architect successfully defeated an application to the PCC made by the Board.  The Board had applied under the Investigations Rules Rule 14 to refer the whole case back for further consideration by the Investigations Committee.  However, the case was already in the hands of the PCC and the architect successfully claimed that by section 14(3) of the Act he had an absolute statutory entitlement to have the case heard, and an exoneration given on a proper consideration of the case. (See note of meeting.)

Case Study 2 continued

[ top]