- 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 - 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October 2008; (7) the case is remitted by Consent Order of the High Court - 21 August 2009; and (8) the proceedings are withdrawn - 7 April 2010.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.
Further proceedings before the PCC are stayed
On 23 July 2008, I— S— obtained a High Court Order preventing the PCC from proceeding to make a disciplinary order against him under section 15 the Act, so as to allow time for him to apply to have a decision of the PCC, made on 9 June 2008, judicially reviewed.
The substantive reason for the application was that the PCC's decision was erroneous in law. But the decision in question was not the "judgment" of the PCC made on 7 November 2007, in which I— S— was said to have been found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct under Part III of the Architects Act 1997, but a procedural decision refusing to allow I— S— to make certain representations. This refusal was not only against him but against the Board which had conceded the point and had agreed with I— S—.
The representations which I— S— had sought to make through his solicitor Mr Tony Child of Beachcroft LLP was that the proceedings against him, as shown by the "judgment", were flawed: in particular that the Committee had reached its decision in breach of the rules of natural justice. As the judge said on 23 July: "We are getting rather far away from the point here aren't we?" For these were proceedings about proceedings about the original decision.
N.B. The charge against I— S—, namely that he had failed to provide evidence of his professional indemnity insurance, was the subject of advice from Mr David Blunt QC, in which he said (at paragraph 39) that I— S— had an "obvious and complete defence to the charge against him" (see Case Study 2, Part 3, above).
The application for judicial review is now before the Court. For a further note see : A question of principle.
|Architects Registration Board|
|- competence to practise|
|Professional standards - the code, etc|
|Use of title|
|Links to websites:|
|- chartered bodies|
|- historical notes|