APPEAL BY JAMES CRAIGIE TANNAHIL THOMSON AGAINST THE ARCHITECT REGISTRATION BOARD

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a registered architect, was instructed in 2014 to oversee the construction of a block of flats in The City. His responsibilities included quality checks, ensuring compliance with approved drawings, site inspections, and issuing final certificates. In 2016, an Investigations Panel found no case to answer regarding inadequate soundproofing. However, a further complaint in 2018 concerning lack of fireproofing led to reconsideration. The Panel found a case to answer for unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence based on the issuance of final certificates despite non-compliance with Building Regulations and approved drawings.

A hearing before the Respondent's Professional Conduct Committee ("PCC") was scheduled for March 2020. The Appellant admitted the key factual allegations and unacceptable professional conduct but denied serious professional incompetence. He requested adjournments pending civil proceedings and due to medical and logistical reasons, all of which were refused. The hearing was postponed due to the pandemic and subsequently held virtually in August 2020, which the Appellant and his representatives did not attend.

The PCC proceeded in the Appellant's absence, found the allegations proven, and concluded unacceptable professional conduct. The sanction hearing was continued to September 2020, again without the Appellant's attendance. The PCC imposed erasure from the register with the possibility of re-admission after two years. The Appellant appealed, challenging the fairness of the hearing and the sanction's severity.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the PCC's decision to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Appellant was fair and lawful.
2. Whether the sanction of erasure from the register was excessive or disproportionate.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The PCC failed to recognize that ongoing civil proceedings prevented effective participation in the hearing, thus denying a fair trial.
• The hearing should have been adjourned to allow legal representation due to the Appellant's solicitor's medical condition.
• The refusal to adjourn the sanction hearing denied the Appellant a fair opportunity to influence the sanction decision.
• The sanction was excessive, failing to properly consider mitigating factors such as the Appellant’s lengthy career without previous complaints and the context of the project.
• The PCC did not explain why erasure was warranted over less severe sanctions like reprimand or suspension.

Respondent's Arguments

• The PCC’s decision was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair under common law and Article 6 ECHR.
• The Appellant had adequate notice and opportunity to participate but chose not to attend or be represented at the hearing.
• The PCC properly considered all reasons for adjournment requests and balanced fairness to the Appellant with the public interest.
• The sanction was appropriate, proportionate, and in accordance with the Architects Act 1997 and ARB Sanctions Guidance.
• The court should only interfere with the sanction if it is plainly wrong, excessive, or disproportionate, which was not the case here.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the procedural fairness of the PCC’s decision to proceed in the Appellant's absence. It noted that the Appellant had admitted the key allegations and unacceptable professional conduct in advance and had legal representation available, though neither he nor his agents attended the hearing. The court rejected the claim that ongoing civil proceedings or insurance constraints prevented participation, finding no evidence supported this. The PCC had properly applied Rule 14, ensuring the Appellant had adequate opportunity to participate and provided sufficient reasons for proceeding without him.

The court also considered the submissions regarding the sanction. It emphasized the established legal principles that specialist tribunals’ decisions deserve respect and should only be overturned for serious procedural flaws or manifestly inappropriate outcomes. The PCC had followed the correct procedure, considered aggravating and mitigating factors, and concluded that erasure was the only appropriate sanction given the serious nature of the Appellant’s professional failings and their impact on the public and profession.

The court found no basis to interfere with either the decision to proceed in absence or the sanction imposed. It highlighted the public interest in expeditious resolution and the protection of professional standards.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED THE APPEAL.

The direct effect is that the PCC’s decision to proceed with the hearing in the Appellant's absence and to impose the sanction of erasure (with a possibility of re-admission after two years) stands. The court set no new precedent but reaffirmed the principles governing procedural fairness in regulatory hearings and the deference owed to specialist tribunals in sanction decisions.