I was the architect involved in the case that Tony Bingham wrote about in his article 鈥淭oo much to ask for鈥� (27 May, page 48).

Strangely enough almost every single figure quoted was wrong 鈥� I don鈥檛 know how he managed it, but that is not important.

The central issue is the clause for architects costs. In the SFA 99 Clause 9.6, the architect only gets their personal time paid for if they win the dispute or the client loses a negligence claim. The SFA certainly does not expect the architect to collect any kind of costs if they lose. Read the clause 鈥� a qualified barrister, as Mr Bingham apparently is, shouldn鈥檛 publish that kind of nonsense.

There are lessons to be learned. The problem the judge found was that the client couldn鈥檛 collect personal time costs if they won. It didn鈥檛 cut both ways. It might be hard to find a basis for time charges for a non-professional, but that would have been one way to solve the fairness problem. The other thing mentioned was that solicitors can鈥檛 get compensated for their own fee recovery dispute time, so why should architects? That is a harder question to get around given the backgrounds of most judges.

Alfred Munkenbeck, Munkenbeck + Marshall Architects

Topics