Woodman-Smith v Architects Registration Board
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- SIR STEPHEN SILBER
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Contract Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case pertains to Mr. Woodman-Smith's appeal against a PCC decision under the Architects Act 1997. He was found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct for not entering a written agreement with his client. His resignation attempt from the Architects Register to avoid proceedings was rejected; hence, the jurisdiction of the PCC stood. The court upheld the applicability and breach of the Architects Code to the appellant's undertaken work and the appropriateness of the imposed reprimand.
Judgment
Sir Stephen Silber:
Introduction
Mr. Michael Woodman-Smith (“the Appellant”) brings this appeal under s. 22 (c) of the Architects Act 1997 (“ the Act ”) against a decision of the Professional Conduct Committee (“the PCC”) of the Architects Registration Board (“the Board”) made on 15 May 2014 by which it held that the Appellant was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. It then made a disciplinary order against the Appellant in the form of a reprimand. The Appellant challenges both the finding of guilt, and also the sanction imposed on him.
The decision of the PCC was a result of a complaint made to the Board on 25 October 2012 about the conduct of the Appellant by Gregg Latchams, solicitors, on behalf of an individual complainant. The complaint related to the services which the Appellant performed after he had accepted an instruction under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (“the Party Wall Act”) including his failure to enter into a written agreement with his client, who was the complainant, prior to undertaking professional work contrary to standard 4.4 of the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2010 (“the Code”).
The underlying facts are complex and lengthy, but they are not in dispute in this appeal. The Appellant was notified of the complaint by the PCC on 4 December 2012. He sent detailed responses on 30 and 31 January 2013 before Gregg Latchams sent further detailed comments on 12 March 2013 to which the Appellant responded on 10 April 2013. Following further lengthy correspondence from both the Appellant and Gregg Latchams, an Investigations Panel gave a Preliminary Decision on 6 August 2013 that the matter should be referred to the PCC. The Appellant responded both himself and through his solicitors on 16 September 2013.
On 1 November 2013, the Investigations Panel concluded that the Appellant should be referred to the PCC. The allegations referred to the Board of unacceptable professional conduct by the Appellant were that:
“(a) That he failed to enter into a written agreement with his client prior to undertaking professional work contrary to standard 4.4 of the [the Code]; and
(b) That he failed to keep his client informed of any issues which may significantly affect its cost contrary to standard 6.3 of the Code”.
At all times since he had been instructed by the complainant in the matter which gave rise to the complaint, the Appellant had been a registered architect whose name was on the Register of Architects,