NSW Architects Registration Board v Goriaux [2010] NSWADT 21

NSW Architects Registration Board v Goriaux [2010] NSWADT 21

The Respondent, as nominated architect responsible for Insite's architectural services, failed after receiving detailed allegations of fraud to investigate whether Insite had improperly obtained and retained fees paid by Mr and Ms Dammerer or to take steps toward appropriate reimbursement. That failure amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct under section 32(d) and section 32(i) of the Architects Act 2003 and was sufficiently serious to constitute professional misconduct under section 32(a). Because the Respondent was no longer registered, the appropriate exercise of power under section 47(7) was to prevent him from applying for re-registration for two years and require an...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary Application for Disciplinary Finding and Orders Under the Architects Act 2003 / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application upheld; Respondent found guilty of professional misconduct and disciplinary orders made.
Legal Topics
['architects Act 2003' 'nominated Architect' 'professional Misconduct' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'service of Documents' 'costs']
['professional Discipline' 'administrative Law'] ['architects Act 2003' 'nominated Architect' 'professional Misconduct' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'service of Documents' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Disciplinary Application for Disciplinary Finding and Orders Under the Architects Act 2003 / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Respondent was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct in relation to his role as nominated architect for Insite Architecture & Design (Newcastle) Pty Ltd.' "Whether the Tribunal should proceed in the Respondent's absence after steps taken to notify him of the proceedings." 'What disciplinary orders should be made where the Respondent was no longer registered as an architect.' "Whether the Respondent should pay the Applicant's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent, as nominated architect responsible for Insite's architectural services, failed after receiving detailed allegations of fraud to investigate whether Insite had improperly obtained and retained fees paid by Mr and Ms Dammerer or to take steps toward appropriate reimbursement. That failure amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct under section 32(d) and section 32(i) of the Architects Act 2003 and was sufficiently serious to constitute professional misconduct under section 32(a). Because the Respondent was no longer registered, the appropriate exercise of power under section 47(7) was to prevent him from applying for re-registration for two years and require an...

Court Disposition

Application upheld; Respondent found guilty of professional misconduct and disciplinary orders made.

Orders

  • ['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.' 'When making any such application for re-registration, the Respondent must provide to the Applicant an explanation of the following...