Professional Conduct Committee decision upheld by the High Court

Professional Conduct Committee decision upheld by the High Court (29/03/2007)

In July 2005, Senka Vranicki was found guilty of serious professional incompetence by the Professional Conduct Committee. It imposed a reprimand.

The architect appealed to the High Court. The appeal was heard in January 2007 by Mr Justice Collins. He gave judgment on 16 March 2007, and dismissed the appeal.

Mr Justice Collins concluded that in cases concerning professional competence, considerable attention should be given to the views of the Professional Conduct Committee. It could also decide if a mistake was serious. In this case, the Professional Conduct Committee had the relevant material and was entitled to arrive at its conclusions.

In reaching his decision, Mr Justice Collins recognised that the architect had not fallen below the appropriate standards in the past. However, he said that things went badly wrong on the project. He was not persuaded that the Professional Conduct Committee was wrong to find serious professional incompetence to have been established.

One of the points raised by the appellant related to the time that the case had taken to reach the Professional Conduct Committee. Mr Justice Collins noted that the delay was unfortunate, but it was not, at least after 2003, the fault of the ARB. The Professional Conduct Committee was therefore entitled to proceed with the hearing.

Alison Carr, Registrar and Chief Executive of ARB stated after the hearing:

“I am pleased to note that the Court upheld the decision made by the Professional Conduct Committee in this case. The judgment supports the view that the Professional Conduct Committee is the judge of the facts presented and the Court recognised the expertise of the Professional Conduct Committee in making its decision”.

----Ends-----

Notes for Editors

Section 22 of the Architects Act 1997 provides that any person aggrieved by the making of a disciplinary order against them may appeal to the High Court against that decision or order; but there is no further appeal after that.

ARB is the statutory body established by Parliament under the Architects Act 1997 to regulate the UK architects’ profession in the public interest. The Act requires ARB (among other things) to:

• Maintain the Register of Architects (Section 3)

• Prescribe qualifications for entry to the Register of Architects (Section 4)

• Deal with competence to practise (Section 9)

• Issue a Code which lays down standards of professional conduct and practice (Section 13)

• Regulate use of the title “architect” and prosecute those who use it unlawfully (Section 20)

ARB has a Board of 15 members, seven of whom are architects elected by the profession. The remaining eight are members of the public appointed by the Privy Council to represent the interests of consumers and users of architectural services.