Raging bull
Series: Building ; 258(8273) 7 March 2003, 58-59(2)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: Considers the findings of the Architects Registration Board that an architect was not guilty of charges that he had failed in his professional duties. Reviews the background to "Pearce v Ove Arup Partnerships Ltd" (ChD Abs57376) in which an architect was accused of plagiarising designs for a building in Rotterdam. Looks at the criticisms made by the judge of the conduct of the expert witness. These include claims that he had failed to visit the building in question and had not properly read an important document (please also see Abs65505). View judgment at www.bailii.org| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS66516 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 121738-1001 |
Considers the findings of the Architects Registration Board that an architect was not guilty of charges that he had failed in his professional duties. Reviews the background to "Pearce v Ove Arup Partnerships Ltd" (ChD Abs57376) in which an architect was accused of plagiarising designs for a building in Rotterdam. Looks at the criticisms made by the judge of the conduct of the expert witness. These include claims that he had failed to visit the building in question and had not properly read an important document (please also see Abs65505). View judgment at www.bailii.org