header-logo header-logo

03 May 2013
Issue: 7558 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Architect—Registration—Removal of name from register

Dowland v Architects Registration Boarddydh [2013] EWHC 893 (Admin), [2013] All ER (D) 159 (Apr)

Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court (London), Simon J, 19 Apr 2013

There is no right to appeal against a refusal to reinstated someone erased from the register under s 22 of the Architects Act 1997. The only basis for a challenge is a claim for judicial review on conventional public law grounds.

David Ball (instructed by Duncan Lewis (Solicitors) Ltd) for the appellant. Ben Collins (instructed by Russell Cooke LLP) for the board.

The respondent Architects Registration Board found that the appellant architect had engaged in unacceptable professional conduct by his failure to report his bankruptcy. Accordingly, in July 2008, his name was erased from the register of architects. In October 2010, the appellant applied for re-entry on the register. In December 2011, the board refused that application on grounds which included a bankruptcy restriction order against him which was to continue until March 2016. The appellant appealed against that refusal under s 22(1) of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll