The Registration of Architects

Progress, Volume XII, Issue 10, 1 June 1917, Page 978

The Registration of Architects

Judging by the number of cases given against tire ■ Institute of Architects, it looks as though the iict will have to be amended in the near future it it is to be of any use, either to members or the general public. As things stand at present there is a good deal of dissatisfaction all round, and the latest decision given m Christchurch will not tend to mend matters, it seems that the validity of some of the essential regulations of the Act is questioned, and unless the Institute decide to appeal against the Christchurch decision, members will have practically no security guaranteed them by the Act. The Christchurch case alluded to is one in which an application by Hugh Robert Hamilton of Christchurch to be registered as a member of the Institute was heard before His Honor Mr. Justice Dcnniston, Mr. W. A. Gumming of Auckland being present to represent the Institute. His Honor (reports a Christchurch paper), in a lengthy judgment, said that an originating summons asked the Court to decide (1) whether or not the Council of the Institute was entitled to decline to register Hamilton on the ground that he declined to sign a statutory declaration as required by Regulation 14 of the Institute’s regulations; and (2) whether or not Regulation 28 (d) of the same regulations was valid; it was also asked that the costs of the application should be paid by the defendants. The declaration which Hamilton declined to sign set out that he would not accept any trade or other discounts, or illicit or surreptitious commissions or allowances in connexion with any works which he might be engaged to superintend. On the undisputed facts his Honor thought it was clear that on the Statute the Institute was not entitled to require Hamilton to sign the declaration demanded from him, or indeed any declaration, and therefore the Institute Avas not entitled to decline to register Hamilton as a member of the Institute. As to the question of the validity of the regulation referring to misconduct of a member of the Institute, his Honor said that the conduct referred to in the regulation—that being in business

as a registered architect, the member is cither solely or on his own account, or in partnership, is interested or concerned in the profits of any building operations—was not malum in sc. It was a wellknown practice of men qualified professionally as architects to undertake to build as well as to design a house. The practice was open to some objections if the same person were architect, builder, and inspector, but a would-be house owner who chose to accept this risk did so with his eyes open. His Honor, therefore, answered both questions in the negative and awarded the plaintiff £lO 10s. costs. Mr. C. E. Salter was plaintiff’s solicitor, and Messrs Chapman, Skerrctt, Tripp and Blair solicitors for the defendant Institute. At the hearing Mr. Raymond, K.C., with him Mr. Salter, appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Blair for defendants.