- 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 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October 2008; (7) the case is remitted by Consent Order of the High Court - 21 August 2009; and (8) the proceedings are withdrawn - 7 April 2010.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.
The hearing on 17th and 18th September was adjourned part heard.
It could be that the chairman of the hearing panel (one of the solicitors who had been nominated by the President of the Law Society under the Architects Act 1997) had been doing his best, no less than the architect himself, to help the panel give a fair hearing and achieve what would objectively be considered a just result, but on the second day he described a submission which the architect had made on the previous day as "judicial nonsense".
A well-informed but disinterested person present at the hearing could well have found that remark of considerable interest, first, because the architect's submissions had been far from nonsensical, and had evidently been confirmed to him by the formal legal advice of leading counsel whose professional standing and relevant experience as a practitioner and judge deserved at least a modicum of respect; and secondly, because the chairman who uttered it had acquired some notoriety for making barely intelligible rulings, and in the course of the hearing repeatedly interrupted the architect so as to impede the development of the argument, near to (perhaps beyond) the point of frustrating the statutory purpose of any such hearing prescribed in section 14(4)(b) of the Architects Act: to give [the architect] the opportunity to appear before the committee to argue his case.
|Architects Registration Board|
|- competence to practise|
|Professional standards - the code, etc|
|Use of title|
|Links to websites:|
|- chartered bodies|
|- historical notes|