Woodman-Smith v Architects Registration Board

An architect remains subject to disciplinary jurisdiction while his name remains on the statutory register. A registered architect must comply with the core obligation to agree written terms before undertaking professional work, including work as a party wall surveyor. Breach of the Architects Code does not automatically constitute unacceptable professional conduct, but may do so where the circumstances show a serious failure to protect the client’s interests. The appellate court gives substantial weight to the professional disciplinary tribunal’s evaluation of matters of degree. A reprimand may properly be imposed to uphold professional standards and protect the public, rather than to punish.

The appellant, a registered architect, appealed under section 22(c) of the Architects Act 1997 against a Professional Conduct Committee finding of unacceptable professional conduct and a reprimand. The complaint concerned work undertaken under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, including failure to enter into a written agreement before undertaking professional work, contrary to paragraph 4.4 of the Architects Code.

The appeal raised jurisdiction, the application of the Code to party wall work, whether the breach amounted to unacceptable professional conduct, and whether the reprimand was excessive.

1. Jurisdiction. The appellant’s name remained on the Register when the disciplinary proceedings were brought and determined. The statutory provisions concerning the Register, including the evidential effect of a Registrar’s certificate, supported the conclusion that he was a registered person and that the Professional Conduct Committee had jurisdiction. Alternatively, his conduct after the purported resignation amounted to waiver and might have founded an estoppel. The jurisdiction ground failed.
2. Application of the Code. Paragraph 4.4 of the Architects Code applied when a registered architect acted as a party wall surveyor. The fact that party wall work may be undertaken by professionals other than architects did not displace the architect’s professional obligations. The core purpose of the requirement was to ensure that the client understood the scope of work, fees, responsibilities, limitations, insurance and complaints arrangements before engagement. That purpose applied at least as strongly to party wall work.
3. Unacceptable professional conduct. Section 13(4) of the Architects Act 1997 meant that breach of the Code did not, by itself, constitute unacceptable professional conduct. The Committee was nevertheless entitled to find unacceptable professional conduct where the failure to provide written terms left the client without adequate information about the work and potentially escalating costs. The court recognised the Committee’s expertise and applied the permissible range of reasonable disagreement identified in Vranicki v Architects Registration Board [2007] EWHC 506 (Admin) and Assicurazioni General SpA v Arab Insurance Group [2003] 1 WLR 577.
4. Sanction. A reprimand was justified. Its purpose was to uphold the reputation of the profession, protect the public and reinforce professional standards, rather than to punish. The Committee had properly considered the appellant’s good record and mitigating circumstances. The court followed the approach to disciplinary sanctions stated in McCoan v General Medical Council [1964] 1 WLR 1107, namely that strong grounds are required before interfering with the specialist tribunal’s assessment.
5. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed.

The judgment does not state the outcome of any earlier appeal or decision beyond the Professional Conduct Committee’s decision of 15 May 2014. This court dismissed the appeal against that decision.