Professional conduct in the construction industry
It might be uncomfortable and even against immediate interests but if professionals don’t ‘do the right thing’, they can get into trouble.
Some examples from recent court cases about questionable conduct are discussed below but the key principles are well understood. In business, as a member of a professional institution, an individual must ‘do the right thing’.
This is the test applied by the ICE Code of Professional Conduct. The code is more detailed but this simple obligation is what is required. But if clients' interests are put first and dealings are open and transparent, then the professional will be doing the right thing.
People may snipe about others failing to ‘do the right thing’ and about what they see as unprofessional conduct. Much of this is trivial or misguided. If people do not get what they want then that is a human thing to do. It does not mean those they have complained about have been unprofessional. However, there are clear edges as to what amounts to misconduct.
For those that are involved as dispute resolvers, there is a particularly high benchmark. This especially applies to where there could be any allegation of a conflict of interest.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) provides very detailed guidance. The guidelines are similar for to all professionals acting in a dispute resolution capacity. It is a traffic light system with red, orange and green warnings of the type of issues which arise and might cause a conflict of interest.
The test is not that there is an interest which actually means the objectivity of judgement is impaired. The test is, would a reasonable person knowing all the relevant facts form a view that there is some conflict? This is a high test.
An extremely experienced adjudicator and arbitrator fell foul of this and ended up being criticised in court following an issue which arose in an arbitration. He was the arbitrator.
During the process, he was quizzed by one party about his involvement with the other party’s representative. He ducked the question and got drawn into an argument with the representative who raised it. It ended up in court, which was stinging in its criticism.
It turned out that the arbitrator had derived a significant portion of his work from the representative on the other side. This amounted to him being paid a very considerable sum of money – £250,000-plus over three years.
That he had not disclosed this initially was bad enough but he then refused to be drawn on it when it was put to him. It also turned out that the representative involved maintained a black list of adjudicators and arbitrators which might have weighed on his mind. The result was he was removed as arbitrator because there was a real possibility of bias and received strong public censure.
However, the obligation to behave properly and ‘do the right thing’ extends beyond the dispute resolver when disputes occur and the parties themselves cannot escape sharp practice.
Two recent examples demonstrate the point:
In Beumer Group UK Ltd v Vinci Construction UK Ltd [2016 EWHC 2283 (TCC)], which was a TCC enforcement case in London, Vinci was a main contractor at Gatwick Airport whose works included the baggage handling system.
It subcontracted this to Beumer. Beumer then sub-subcontracted part of the work to Daifuku Logan Ltd. Vinci and Beumer fell out and started an adjudication appointing an adjudicator.
At the same time, there was an adjudication between Beumer and Logan. The same adjudicator was appointed to both. However, Beumer did not inform Vinci of this nor did the adjudicator. Beumer was defending the claim against Logan but advancing the claim against Vinci before the same adjudicator and Vinci knew nothing about it.
The court found that the adjudicator should have informed Vinci that he was acting in the other adjudication but more to the point, Beumer should never have let the position arise and the court was very critical of its conduct. Beumer was not doing the right thing.
In Celtic Bioenergy Limited v Knowles Limited [2017 EWHC 472 (TCC)], Celtic Bioenergy had found itself in arbitration over fees with a former representative in a dispute. The facts are complicated.
Knowles, as part of its arbitration with Celtic Bioenergy, had to show that it had dropped various claims which it would otherwise have had against a client of Celtic Bioenergy, Devon County Council. Knowles produced evidence which convinced the adjudicator that it had dropped its claims against DCC.
However, it eventually came out after the arbitrator had issued his award that Knowles had been concurrently pursuing DCC. Court was strident in its criticism of Knowles and remitted the arbitrator’s award under section 68(2) Arbitration Act 1996 for “serious irregularity”.
This is a hard to do. The test in s68(2) is high. But the serious irregularity was fraud. That means dishonest, reprehensible or unconscionable conduct. Knowles had deliberately misled the arbitrator. The court had no hesitation in criticising Knowles’ conduct and found that Knowles was deceitful and dishonest in its conduct. They were too smart for their own good. They were certainly well below the standard required for professional people.
These cases are all stark reminders of the importance of behaving properly in any business or professional setting but particularly whenever dispute resolution is involved.
Frequently, the right thing is to call in an external dispute resolver either through adjudication or arbitration or to engage in some form of formal dispute resolution.
But in doing so it is also the right thing to ‘do the right thing’.
This article was originally published here on 19 April 2017 by ICE. It was written by James Golden, Director, Quigg Golden.
--The Institution of Civil Engineers
[edit] Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
- Articles by ICE on Designing Buildings Wiki.
- ARB code of conduct.
- BEIS Reforming Regulation Initiative.
- Best practice.
- Code of estimating practice.
- Construction professional.
- Ethics in construction.
- Practice.
- Professional.
- Professional indemnity insurance.
- Professional practice.
- RIBA Code of Professional Conduct.
- RIBA professional conduct guidance.
- What is a Chartered Practice?
Featured articles and news
Boiler Upgrade Scheme and certifications consultation
Summary of government consultation which closes 11 June 2025.
Deputy editor of AT, Tim Fraser, discusses the newly formed society with its current chair, Chris Halligan MCIAT.
Barratt Lo-E passivhaus standard homes planned enmasse
With an initial 728 Lo-E homes across two sites and many more planned for the future.
Government urged to uphold Warm Homes commitment
ECA and industry bodies write to Government concerning its 13.2 billion Warm Homes manifesto commitment.
Places of Worship in Britain and Ireland, 1929-1990. Book review.
The emancipation of women in art.
CIOB Construction Manager of the Year 2025
Just one of the winners at the CIOB Awards 2025.
Call for independent National Grenfell oversight mechanism
MHCLG share findings of Building Safety Inquiry in letter to Secretary of State and Minister for Building Safety.
The Architectural Technology Awards
AT Awards now open for this the sixth decade of CIAT.
50th Golden anniversary ECA Edmundson awards
Deadline for submissions Friday 30 May 2025.
The benefits of precast, off-site foundation systems
Top ten benefits of this notable innovation.
Encouraging individuals to take action saving water at home, work, and in their communities.
Takes a community to support mental health and wellbeing
The why of becoming a Mental Health Instructor explained.
Mental health awareness week 13-18 May
The theme is communities, they can provide a sense of belonging, safety, support in hard times, and a sense purpose.
Mental health support on the rise but workers still struggling
CIOB Understanding Mental Health in the Built Environment 2025 shows.
Design and construction material libraries
Material, sample, product or detail libraries a key component of any architectural design practice.
Construction Products Reform Green Paper and Consultation
Still time to respond as consultation closes on 21 May 2025.
Resilient façade systems for smog reduction in Shanghai
A technical approach using computer simulation and analysis of solar radiation, wind patterns, and ventilation.