000			01361cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS66516
008			030326n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u121738
100			_aBingham, T.
245			_aRaging bull
260			_c2003
490			_aBuilding _v258(8273) 7 March 2003, 58-59(2)
520			_aConsiders 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
590			_aABS
650			_aARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
650			_aPEARCE V OVE ARUP PARTNERSHIP LTD AND OTHERS
650			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING INSPECTION
650			_aEXPERT WITNESSES
650			_aEXPERT WITNESS REPORT
690			_aDISPUTE RESOLUTION-EXPERT WITNESS-CASE LAW
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2001/455.html&query=Pearce _ZView judgment at Bailii website.
942			_n0
999			_c72351 _d72351