Vranicki v Architects Registration Board [2007]

© Daniel Atkinson 2007 09 June 2007

The selection of the right contract and the proper administration of the contract are vital to a successful project. This is particularly so in small building works and in that case it is usually the Architect which is expected to carry out those tasks.

That was the case in Vranicki v Architects Registration Board [2007] EWHC 506 (Admin) decided by Mr Justice Collins.

Scott Sartain and Eleanor Flook bought a Victorian terraced house in Kilburn in 1999. They instructed Ms. Vranicki as the Architect for an extension to provide a new kitchen on the ground floor and a new bathroom on the second floor with a limited budget. The Architect’s design of the kitchen glass roof was attractive but technically difficult and beyond the capacity of an ordinary builder. It was necessary to employ a specialist to produce and to install the roof.

The only contractor interested in doing the works was DCB (Kent) Limited. The specialist contractors were Alloy Fabweld Ltd and a structural engineer was also engaged. Before the roof could be put in place, the necessary building work had to be carried out in order to ensure that it could be fixed properly.

Things went badly wrong for the house owners. The main trouble seems to have been the lack of co-ordination between the builder DCB and the specialist AF. Not only was the work not completed in time but a temporary roof had to be installed which turned out to defective and the kitchen was unusable and the house uninhabitable and insecure for a considerable period. When the permanent roof was installed remedial works were required because of the absence of the necessary slope. The failure to incorporate the slope was in the end critical, but the error was not spotted until it came to installing the roof. DCB asserted that the Architect’s designs were unworkable. Eventually the house owners dispensed with the services of the Architect and other contractors were called in to complete the work with a different sort of roof.

Mr Justice Collins considered that it was precisely because of foreseeable and usual construction difficulties that an architect who was engaged to supervise. In that role the architect had to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the project ran as smoothly as possible by advising clients on the appropriate contractual arrangements. The architect had to monitor progress, identify poor or defective workmanship and require it to be remedied. There was a limit to what could reasonably be achieved if contractors did not co-operate or did not carry out their work properly.

The house owners obtained a report from a distinguished architect. The report was critical not only of the manner in which the project had been managed and of the contractual arrangements that had been adopted but also of the design by the Architect. There were also charges both of unacceptable professional conduct and of serious professional incompetence.

Eventually charges were brought before the Professional Conduct Committee of the Architects’ Registration Board which found that the Architect was guilty of serious professional incompetence.

Mr Justice Collins observed that the project was properly to be regarded as minor building works and so the agreement identified as MW 98 was prima facie appropriate. He observed that the Architect should have known that it was important for DCB and AF to work together. There could be no criticism of an arrangement of a separate contract between the house owners and AF instead of naming or nominating the specialist in the contract with the builders DCB. Mr Justice Collins held however that with that arrangement it was necessary for the Architect to advise on what terms should be sought from the specialist AF to ensure proper liaison and what obligations should be accepted by DCB. He considered that those terms would have been spelt out in correspondence and did not need a modification to the terms of the MW98 contract. He observed that it was undesirable that there should have to be reliance on implied terms of liaison between the builder DCB and specialist AF. The absence of express obligations would inevitably lead to an opportunity to argue and so to delay. The lack of express contractual terms required greater control by the Architect. It was held that the PCC were entitled to conclude that the difficulties that arose were in part caused by Architect not retaining proper control.

Mr Justice Collins recognised that the Architect had not fallen below the appropriate standards in the past and was to be regarded generally as a competent member of her profession. Things went badly wrong on the particular project, but it was an isolated event. Nonetheless, he held that the PCC were entitled to find that serious professional incompetence had been established.