Chapman v NSW Architects Registration Board - [2013] NSWADT 120

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chapman v NSW Architects Registration Board [2013] NSWADT 120
Hearing dates: 6 March 2013
Decision date: 30 May 2013
Jurisdiction: General Division
Before: M Chesterman, Deputy President
J Jose, Non-judicial Member
P O'Carrigan, Non-judicial Member
Decision:
1. The Respondent's decision that the Applicant was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct is affirmed.
2. The Respondent's order that the Applicant be reprimanded and that she report to the Respondent on certain specified matters is set aside and the following order substituted: 'The Applicant is cautioned.'

Catchwords: Architect - unsatisfactory professional conduct - failure to advise clients of increase in cost of building project
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Architects Act 2003
Architects Regulation 2004
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Cases Cited: Building Professionals Board v Boulle [2008] NSWADT 80
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Annabelle Chapman (Applicant)
NSW Architects Registration Board (Respondent)
Representation: P A Horvath (Applicant)
P Griffin (Respondent)
Colin Biggers & Paisley (Applicant)

File Number(s): 123236
Publication restriction: Publication of all of the bundle of documents comprising Exhibit 2 in these proceedings is prohibited, except for the emails sent by Emile Jansen dated 20 and 22 October 2012.

reasons for decision

Introduction

By an Application filed on 21 August 2012, the Applicant, Annabelle Chapman, sought review by the Tribunal of a decision of the Respondent, the NSW Architects Registration Board ('the Board') made on 19 July 2012.

In that decision, the Board found that Ms Chapman, who is a registered architect, had been guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct. In the exercise of powers conferred on it by section 43(4) of the Architects Act 2003 ('the Act'), it ordered that she be reprimanded and that within thirty days of its decision she should report to it on certain specified matters relating to her practice as an architect.

The Application filed by Ms Chapman (hereafter 'the Architect') is made under section 44 of the Act. It was heard before us on 6 March 2013. Ms Horvath of counsel appeared for the Architect and Mr Griffin of counsel for the Board.

The evidence tendered by the Architect comprised a statement by her dated 30 October 2012; an undated statement by Ian Thomas, a licensed builder; and an expert report by Emile Jansen, a registered architect and licensed builder. These three witnesses gave oral evidence and were cross-examined. The only evidence tendered by the Board was its folder of relevant documents, which it had filed pursuant to section 58 of the ADT Act, and two emails sent by Mr Jansen on 20 and 22 October 2012 respectively.

Written submissions on behalf of both parties were filed in advance of the hearing.

Outline of facts

These proceedings derive from a complaint ('the Complaint') made against the Architect by Rainer and Greta Hug ('the Clients') and received by the Board on 24 August 2010.

At about 8 a.m. on 22 September 2009, the Architect met the Clients for the first time. They gave her a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chapman v NSW Architects Registration Board and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWADT 120
Decision Date: 30 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Chapman v NSW Architects Registration Board, the respondent sought to discipline the architect, Ms Chapman, for her failure to advise clients of an increase in the cost of a building project, which led to the project's abandonment. The dispute was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Board had found Ms Chapman guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and issued a reprimand, along with other requirements to report on specific matters. Ms Chapman appealed the decision, arguing that the Board's findings were not supported by the evidence and that the penalties were disproportionate.

The court considered whether the Board's decision was justified and whether the penalties imposed were appropriate. The central legal issue was whether Ms Chapman's conduct constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct under the Architects Act 1991. The court also examined the proportionality and appropriateness of the penalties imposed by the Board. In determining these issues, the court applied statutory interpretation principles and reviewed the evidence before the Board to assess whether it supported the Board's findings.

The court found that the Board's decision that Ms Chapman was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct was supported by the evidence. However, the court held that the penalties imposed were excessive and disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the conduct. The court set aside the reprimand and reporting requirements, substituting a caution as a more appropriate penalty. The court held that the Board had erred in not considering the lesser penalty of a caution, which was sufficient to address the concerns arising from Ms Chapman's conduct.

The court affirmed the Board's finding that Ms Chapman was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct. It set aside the reprimand and reporting requirements, substituting a caution. The court's decision underscores the importance of proportionality in disciplinary actions and highlights the need for disciplinary bodies to consider a range of penalties, including lesser sanctions, before imposing more severe measures.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondent's decision that the Applicant was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct is affirmed.

2. The Respondent's order that the Applicant be reprimanded and that she report to the Respondent on certain specified matters is set aside and the following order substituted: 'The Applicant is cautioned.'

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Chapman v NSW Architects Registration Board [2013] NSWADT 120
Hearing dates:	6 March 2013
Decision date:	30 May 2013
Jurisdiction:	General Division
Before:	M Chesterman, Deputy President J Jose, Non-judicial Member P O'Carrigan, Non-judicial Member
Decision:	1. The Respondent's decision that the Applicant was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct is affirmed. 2. The Respondent's order that the Applicant be reprimanded and that she report to the Respondent on certain specified matters is set aside and the following order substituted: 'The Applicant is cautioned.'
Catchwords:	Architect - unsatisfactory professional conduct - failure to advise clients of increase in cost of building project
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Architects Act 2003 Architects Regulation 2004 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Cases Cited:	Building Professionals Board v Boulle [2008] NSWADT 80
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Annabelle Chapman (Applicant) NSW Architects Registration Board (Respondent)
Representation:	P A Horvath (Applicant) P Griffin (Respondent) Colin Biggers & Paisley (Applicant)
File Number(s):	123236
Publication restriction:	Publication of all of the bundle of documents comprising Exhibit 2 in these proceedings is prohibited, except for the emails sent by Emile Jansen dated 20 and 22 October 2012.