NSW Architects Registration Board v Goriaux - [2010] NSWADT 21

CITATION: NSW Architects Registration Board v Goriaux [2010] NSWADT 21

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
NSW Architects Registration Board
RESPONDENT
Philippe Goriaux

FILE NUMBER: 093203

HEARING DATES: 20 November 2009

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 20 November 2009

DATE OF DECISION:
22 January 2010

BEFORE: Chesterman M - Deputy President; O'Carrigan P - Non-Judicial Member; Watts P - Non-Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Disciplinary application – Architects Act 2003 – nominated architect – forged development consent created by architect’s company – fees improperly recovered from clients

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Architects Act 2003

CASES CITED: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1936) 60 CLR 336
Gianoutsos v Glykis [2006] NSWCCA 137

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
P Griffin, barrister
RESPONDENT
No appearance

ORDERS: 1. The Respondent is not permitted to apply for re-registration as an architect under the Architects Act 2003 within the period of two years following the date of this decision
2. When making any such application for re-registration, the Respondent must provide to the Applicant an explanation of the following matters: (a) the action, if any, that he took to investigate the allegations made about the behaviour of Insite Architecture & Design (Newcastle) Pty Ltd contained in the letter dated 8 February 2008 from Mr John Lakos, of Lakos & Company Lawyers, to Mr Sean Lander, once he had received a copy of that letter; (b) the action, if any, that he took to make appropriate reimbursement to Mr Stephen Dammerer and Ms Tanya Dammerer; and (c) if he did act in either of these ways, the reasons why he did not advise the Applicant accordingly once he had received a copy of the complaint made against him by Mr and Ms Dammerer
3. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs, as agreed or as assessed under the Legal Profession Act 2004.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1 In this case, the evidence suggested that an employee of an architect corporation forged a document purporting to show the consent of a local authority to a development project being instituted by the corporation’s clients. The corporation received payment of its fees from the clients. The chief question to be determined was what disciplinary order or orders, if any, should be made under the Architects Act 2003 (‘the Act’) against the architect who had been nominated under this Act as responsible for the provision of architectural services by the corporation.

2 These proceedings were instituted by an Application filed on 30 July 2009 by the NSW Architects Registration Board (‘the Board’) against the architect in question, Mr Philippe Goriaux.

3 Mr Goriaux did not appear at two directions hearings or at the substantive hearing, which took place on 20 November 2009. At that hearing, we decided, after receiving evidence about the measures adopted to serve documents on him relating to the proceedings, that the Board should be permitted to tender its evidence and make submissions, following which we should determine what disciplinary order or orders should be made against him. The evidence on which we based this…

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 NSW Architects Registration Board v Goriaux 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: [2010] NSWADT 21
Decision Date: 22 January 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The NSW Architects Registration Board brought a disciplinary application against Mr Goriaux, a registered architect, following an investigation into his conduct. The Board alleged that Mr Goriaux had been involved in the creation of a forged development consent by his company, Insite Architecture & Design (Newcastle) Pty Ltd, and had improperly recovered fees from clients. The matter was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Goriaux's actions constituted professional misconduct and whether the penalties imposed by the Board were appropriate.

The Tribunal found that Mr Goriaux had indeed engaged in professional misconduct by allowing his company to create a forged development consent and by improperly recovering fees from the Dammerer clients. The Tribunal accepted the evidence that Mr Goriaux was aware of the fraudulent activities but failed to take appropriate action to rectify the situation. The Tribunal also found that the penalties imposed by the Board, including the prohibition on re-registration for two years and the requirement for Mr Goriaux to provide detailed explanations of his actions to the Board, were appropriate and proportionate to the misconduct. The Tribunal further ordered Mr Goriaux to pay the Board's costs.

The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of maintaining professional standards and integrity within the architectural profession. By finding Mr Goriaux guilty of professional misconduct and imposing stringent penalties, the Tribunal has sent a clear message that such conduct will not be tolerated. The specific conditions imposed on Mr Goriaux's future applications for re-registration also ensure that he has the opportunity to demonstrate his understanding of the gravity of his actions and his commitment to upholding professional standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondent is not permitted to apply for re-registration as an architect under the Architects Act 2003 within the period of two years following the date of this decision

2. When making any such application for re-registration, the Respondent must provide to the Applicant an explanation of the following matters: (a) the action, if any, that he took to investigate the allegations made about the behaviour of Insite Architecture & Design (Newcastle) Pty Ltd contained in the letter dated 8 February 2008 from Mr John Lakos, of Lakos & Company Lawyers, to Mr Sean Lander, once he had received a copy of that letter; (b) the action, if any, that he took to make appropriate reimbursement to Mr Stephen Dammerer and Ms Tanya Dammerer; and (c) if he did act in either of these ways, the reasons why he did not advise the Applicant accordingly once he had received a copy of the complaint made against him by Mr and Ms Dammerer

3. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs, as agreed or as assessed under the Legal Profession Act 2004.

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.

CITATION:	NSW Architects Registration Board v Goriaux [2010] NSWADT 21
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT NSW Architects Registration Board RESPONDENT Philippe Goriaux
FILE NUMBER:	093203
HEARING DATES:	20 November 2009
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	20 November 2009
DATE OF DECISION:	22 January 2010
BEFORE:	Chesterman M - Deputy President; O'Carrigan P - Non-Judicial Member; Watts P - Non-Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Disciplinary application – Architects Act 2003 – nominated architect – forged development consent created by architect’s company – fees improperly recovered from clients
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Architects Act 2003
CASES CITED:	Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1936) 60 CLR 336 Gianoutsos v Glykis [2006] NSWCCA 137
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT P Griffin, barrister RESPONDENT No appearance
ORDERS:	1. The Respondent is not permitted to apply for re-registration as an architect under the Architects Act 2003 within the period of two years following the date of this decision 2. When making any such application for re-registration, the Respondent must provide to the Applicant an explanation of the following matters: (a) the action, if any, that he took to investigate the allegations made about the behaviour of Insite Architecture & Design (Newcastle) Pty Ltd contained in the letter dated 8 February 2008 from Mr John Lakos, of Lakos & Company Lawyers, to Mr Sean Lander, once he had received a copy of that letter; (b) the action, if any, that he took to make appropriate reimbursement to Mr Stephen Dammerer and Ms Tanya Dammerer; and (c) if he did act in either of these ways, the reasons why he did not advise the Applicant accordingly once he had received a copy of the complaint made against him by Mr and Ms Dammerer 3. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs, as agreed or as assessed under the Legal Profession Act 2004.