Disciplinary proceedings – Appellant employed to provide architectural services – Project going badly wrong – Respondent charging appellant with failing to provide appropriate contractual protection or administer project competently – Whether respondent’s committee properly finding serious professional incompetence – Appeal dismissed
The complainants purchased a Victorian terraced house, that they wanted to extend to provide a new kitchen on the ground floor and a new bathroom on the second floor. They instructed the appellant architect to provide architectural services. The appellant had difficulty in finding a builder that was willing to carry out the technically difficult work within the set budget, but eventually found a contractor to do the work.
The appellant engaged specialist contractors to construct and assemble a glass roof and door. A structural engineer was also engaged to assess the nature of the work needed to carry out the appellant’s design. The complainants moved out of the house while the work was carried out. When they returned, they found that the work had not been completed and neither the window nor the door had been constructed. The house was not weatherproof, which caused the complainants to suffer ill-health. A temporary roof was installed, but this proved to be defective. The complainants lost faith in the appellant and obtained legal advice and an independent report. They consequently dispensed with the appellant’s services and other contractors were called in to complete the work.
The appellant was subsequently charged, under the Architects Act 1997, with serious professional incompetence. This was based, inter alia, upon her failure to provide or negotiate adequate or appropriate contractual protection with the contractors and her failure to administer the project competently. The respondent’s professional conduct committee (PCC) found the appellant guilty of serious professional incompetence. The appellant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The court was not persuaded that the PCC had been wrong in finding that the appellant was guilty of serious professional incompetence. Although she had not fallen below the appropriate standards in the past and was generally regarded as a competent member of her profession, things had gone badly wrong with the project in question. When it came to setting the standards of professional conduct, the court would not unquestioningly accept a decision of the PCC. However, where, as in respect of professional competence, that decision was based not upon principle but upon a matter of degree, the court would be cautious in differing from the ruling of the PCC, whose expertise it recognised.
The court rejected the suggestion that an architect could not prevent problems and overruns if contractors turned out to be incompetent. It was precisely because such difficulties were foreseeable that a supervising architect had to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the project ran smoothly, by advising clients on the appropriate contractual arrangements, monitoring progress, identifying poor or defective workmanship and requiring it to be remedied and ensuring that the work was completed on time.
It was unnecessary to decide that each individual allegation found proved had been established. A number of events, although not serious in themselves, together might demonstrate a pattern of incompetence. The PCC should have considered all the allegations found proved in order to decide whether together they established the charge against the appellant. However, in the present case, it was clear that, had the charges been considered cumulatively, a similar finding would have been made.
David Gwillim (of Speechly Bircham) appeared for the appellant; Andrew Peebles (instructed by Russell-Cooke Potter & Chapman) appeared for the respondent.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
