Disciplinary Information

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they provided architectural services without having entered into a written agreement with their client, in breach of clause 4(1) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they continued to provide architectural services to their client where to do so would result in a conflict of interest between the interests of the architect and that client (who was an adjoining owner to a property owned in part by the architect), in breach of clause 12(3) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that he failed to act with reasonable care in the provision of architectural services by designing a building that encroached into the airspace above an adjoining property to their client’s property, in breach of clause 1(a) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

The architect was cautioned in relation to Allegations 1 and 2, reprimanded in relation to Allegation 3, required to undertake further education for the purposes of professional development and ordered to pay a portion of the Boards costs, which was fixed in the sum of $18,000.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they provided architectural services without having entered a written agreement with the client, in breach of clause 4(1) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to provide the client with sufficient relevant information with reasonable promptness to make an informed decision in relation to the provision of services, in breach of clause 7(b) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that all information and material provided to the client was accurate and unambiguous, in breach of clause 7(d) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to endeavour to engender confidence in and respect for the profession of architecture with respect to their billing practices, in breach of clause 17 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to endeavour to maintain the standards and integrity of the profession of architecture with respect to their billing practices, in breach of clause 18 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to endeavour to engender confidence in and respect for the profession of architecture with respect to their communications with the client, the client’s representatives and with a debt collector, in breach of clause 17 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to endeavour to maintain the standards and integrity of the profession of architecture with respect to their communications with the client, the client’s representatives and the ARBV, in breach of clause 18 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to endeavour to engender confidence in and respect for the profession of architecture with respect to their billing practices, in breach of clause 17 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they entered into an agreement with the client and entered into an agreement with the owners of the adjacent property for the provision of architectural services when those agreements would result in an actual or potential conflict of interest, in breach of clause 12 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

The architect was cautioned and ordered to pay $13,500 in costs.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they provided architectural services between 27 March 2019 and 6 November 2019 without having entered a written agreement with the client, in breach of clause 4(1) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that they provided architectural services between 14 November 2019 and 9 October 2021 without having entered a written agreement with the client, in breach of clause 4(1) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to section 32(a) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect was careless or incompetent in their practice by failing to act with reasonable care in respect of the project’s costings.

Pursuant to section 32(a) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect was careless or incompetent in their practice by providing architectural services under a town planning permit that had expired.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of unprofessional conduct in that he failed to endeavour to engender confidence in and respect for the profession of architecture charging for services which were not required and not provided, in breach of clause 17 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct.

The architect was reprimanded and ordered to pay a $4,000 penalty and $12,000 costs.

Pursuant to 32(b) of the Architects Act 1991 (Act), the Architects Tribunal found that the architect's professional standards were demonstrably lower than the standards which a competent architect should meet, in that he failed to comply with the payment terms of a contract.

Pursuant to 32(c) of the Act, the Architects Tribunal found that the Architect engaged in unprofessional conduct in that he contravened clause 17 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct (Code), by failing to endeavour to engender confidence in and respect for the profession of architecture and by failing to comply with the payment terms of the contract.

Pursuant to 32(c) of the Act, the Architects Tribunal found that the architect engaged in unprofessional conduct in that he contravened clause 18 of the Code, by failing to endeavour to maintain the standards and integrity of the profession of architecture, by failing to comply with the payment terms of the contract.

Pursuant to 32(c) of the Act, the Architects Tribunal found that the architect engaged in unprofessional conduct in that he contravened clause 4 of the Code, by providing architectural services to the client having failed to enter into a written agreement with the client which included the prescribed requirements.

Pursuant to 32(c) of the Act, the Architects Tribunal found that the architect engaged in unprofessional conduct in that he contravened clause 9 of the Code by entering into an agreement with the client under clause 4 of the Code but failing to keep documents in accordance with clause 9 of the Code.

The Tribunal ordered that the architect be cautioned and that he pay the Tribunal’s costs in the sum of $4,000.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991 and Regulation 16 of the Architects Regulations 2004 (2004 Regulations), the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of contravening Regulation 14 of 2004 Regulations for failing to provide the description, terms and conditions of their engagement to provide architectural services as soon as practicable to the client.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991 and Regulation 9 of the Architects Regulations 2015 (2015 Regulations), the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of contravening Clause 7(a) of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct (Code) contained in Schedule 1 of the 2015 Regulations.

Pursuant to section 32(a) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of two allegations of being careless in their practice in that they failed to apply for an extension of the expiry period in respect of the town planning permit (TPP) and facilitated the client entering a building contract in circumstances when the TPP had expired and not been extended.

The Tribunal ordered that the Architect’s registration be cancelled.

Pursuant to section 32(a) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of two allegations of being careless and incompetent in their practice in that they failed to identify that a glass balustrade along an internal balcony that did not comply with the requirements of the National Construction Code (NCC) and that they permitted or directed a variation to building work without the consent of the owners of the dwelling.

The architect was reprimanded and ordered to pay the Boards costs of $46,595.80.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of two allegations of unprofessional conduct in that they provided architectural services without entering into written agreements for the provision of architectural services.

Pursuant to section 32(d) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of four allegations that they breached or failed to comply with provisions of the Architects Act in that they did not comply with section 8B of the Act and carried out work as an architect without being covered by the required insurance.

The architect was reprimanded and ordered to pay the Boards costs of $7,000. The architect was also order to attend 30 hours of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) within 12 months of the orders.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of two allegations of unprofessional conduct in that they provided a false and/or misleading representation to the Architects Registration Board of Victoria to the effect that they were employed by an approved architectural company and covered under its policy of professional indemnity insurance.

The architect was was fined $2,500 for each of the proven allegations. The architect was suspended from professional practice for four months and was required to pay the Board's costs of $7,000.

Pursuant to section 32(c) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect guilty of one allegation of unprofessional conduct in that they failed to perform their work as an architect in a competent manner and to a professional standard by approving the use of a wall cladding product in circumstances where that wall cladding product did not comply with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

The architect was reprimanded and ordered to pay a portion of the Boards costs, which was fixed in the sum of $30,000.

Pursuant to section 32(a) of the Architects Act 1991, the Architects Tribunal found the architect was careless in their practice in that they designed and administered the construction of a building structure in contravention of an applicable restrictive covenant.

The architect was cautioned and ordered to pay $7000 costs.