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2008; (7) the case is remitted by Consent Order of the High Court - 21 August 2009; and (8) the proceedings are withdrawn - 7 April 2010.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

Practitioners' Registration Service: Further amendment?

Policy-makers and others who have considered the information available on this website may have become perplexed about the treatment of some architects by the Board and its Professional Conduct Committee, as described in Case Study 1 and Case Study 2.  In a brief Note on Part III of the Architects Act 1997 ( html/ pdf) an AARUK contributor explains that the present Act cannot properly be applied as if it enabled the Board to originate a duty to inform the Board, such as it asserts in Code Standard 8, or enabled the Board's Professional Conduct Committee to enforce such a claim, irrespective of the validity of the Standard in other respects.  

For an outline of the steps by which the Board has progressively strayed from the Act, in principle and in fact, see the Notice of Application to Quash in Case Study 1.  

Should the legislation be further amended to save the Board from the charge of jactitation of power?

Case study 2 continued

[ top]