| Date | 16 June 1999 |
|
|
| Judgment | Munkenbeck & Marshall -v- Kensington Hotel, QBD 23 December 1998 |
|
|
| The Issue | Use of the title architect. |
|
|
| Implication |
In situations where there remains doubt over the precise terms of the contract, or when work commences in the absence of a formalised agreement it will fall to the courts to interpret the intention of the parties when deciding the extent to which any agreement exists between them. |
printPersons who provide architectural services are entitled to call themselves "architects" in the United Kingdom only if they are registered with the Architect's Registration Council of the United Kingdom, ARCUK for short. Sections 1 and 3 of the Architect's Registration Act 1938 makes it an offence for anyone to "practice or carry on business under any name, style or title containing the words Architect", unless they are so registered. Architects entitled to registration generally following one of four routes. (1) By examination passing parts 1, 2 and 3 of the professional examinations of the RIBA and by serving a period of practical training. (2) By automatic exemption from the qualifying examinations by obtaining degrees or diploma passes from recognised universities or schools in the UK or abroad. (3) By obtaining degree and diploma qualifications that may be recognised as equivalent to those giving automatic exemption, and by serving the requisite time of practical experience. (4) By being a European Community national qualified under the EC Directive No. 85/384. Whilst the term architect is protected there is no prohibition however against carrying out architectural work. In other professions the professional title may be protected and there may also be a prohibition against carrying out such work. This would for example, be the case for a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. Within the architect's profession and the construction industry generally, the term architect is customarily used to describe the status and activities of persons who are not necessarily entitled to registration but who have architectural qualifications. These matters were examined in the recent case of Munkenbeck & Marshall-v-Kensington Hotel. Munkenbeck & Marshall were engaged by Kensington as architects to provide design services in relation to the conversion of an office building to a 265 room hotel. Disputes arose between the parties culminating in Kensington dismissing Munkenbeck & Marshall as architects to the project. Munkenbeck sued in respect of unpaid professional fees for design work carried out by various members of its staff. Kensington argued that there was no entitlement to the disputed fees since Munkenbeck had been in breach of an agreement to carry out the work using only registered architects. His Honour Judge David Wilcox QC considered the use of the term "architect". Experts for both parties gave evidence to the effect that the term architect is customarily used within the profession in relation to people possessing some or all of the qualifications which may entitle a person to registration. For example, the expert instructed by Munkenbeck was able to produce examples of advertisements in trade and professional journals, to illustrate this. The term "architect" is often used qualified by reference to the exemption held or part of the RIBA professional examination passed. A number of examples were highlighted. An architect with the qualification "working towards RIBA part 3", or "architect RIBA Part 2 qualified", or "experienced architect Part 2 and Part 3". No mention of registration was ever made in these advertisements. Judge Wilcox was satisfied that at the time of negotiation leading to the award of a contract to Munkenbeck for architectural services, Kensington had not made an express requirement for registered architects. Kensington had made it clear that it did not want to employ mere trainees for the project. A preference had been expressed for qualified personnel. This was to be regarded as distinct from registration. Indeed Munkenbeck had made a representation that its office had the latest technology so that there was no need to use unqualified staff because the architecturally qualified staff could operate the computer technology. Judge Wilcox considered that whilst Munkenbeck had used the term "architect" in its representations it had not intended to mislead its client, and in fact had not misled the client. He reviewed the curricula vitae of the staff which had been engaged on the project. These included individuals who had carried out their training in Germany, America and Canada. These personnel, in the view of Judge Wilcox, were of a high standard both by academic qualification from within their country's origin and practical experience. In short the architects were properly described as qualified personnel. Munkenbeck were entitled to apply the contract rate previously agreed between the parties and accordingly they were entitled to judgment for the professional fees that were still owing. Notwithstanding the outcome of this case, it is clear that professional firms should always be careful when describing their staff, as any failure to accurately represent qualifications or experience could potentially be used by the client to dispute fees.
CJ-9924
|
|||
|
© Brewer Consulting |
|||
 |
|||