Client-architect relationships and agreements

Overview

• Clients are diverse so architects’ relationships with different types of clients are likely to differ.
• The client-architect relationship can be affected by various factors, including factors that are outside an architect’s control, particularly in the context of large-scale projects where a D&C procurement model is employed.
• Poor communication can compromise client-architect relationships, and is a problem that is not uncommon.
• Non-compliant client-architect agreements, and the absence of such agreements, can adversely affect client-architect relationships.
• The approach to project costing and fees can also have an adverse impact on client-architect relationships and can lead the client to perceive that a cost blowout has occurred.
• Clients’ access to recourse may be limited under current regulatory arrangements, which may deter clients from raising concerns about unprofessional conduct.
• Architects need to invest in better relationships with their clients, particularly through more effective and meaningful communication.

A. Background

75. The success of a construction project is likely to depend heavily on relationships among the various parties involved in the project, including the relationship between the architect and client.[1] A positive and constructive client-architect relationship can drive alignment between the architect and client.[2] In turn, this can help ensure that the client’s core concerns are addressed – typically, that projects will be delivered within budget, on time, in accordance with specifications and with no surprises.[3]

76. In Victoria and NSW, various aspects of the client-architect relationship are regulated under the Codes of Professional Conduct applicable in those jurisdictions respectively.[4] These requirements include:

• A written client-architect agreement is required for the provision of architectural services.
• Architects must discharge their obligations diligently and promptly.
• Architects must keep clients informed and respond with reasonable promptness to clients’ requests for information.

Information provided to clients must be accurate and unambiguous.

77. The mandatory content of client-architect agreements includes:[5]

• the scope, nature and specific requirements of the architectural services
• the timeframes for providing the services
• the manner in which professional fees and the costs of services will be calculated
• the way the architect will inform the client of progress regarding the provision of services
• the requirement that the architect must inform the client how a change or amendment to the services will affect professional fees and costs for the services
• how the agreement may be terminated and for what reason.

78. These regulatory requirements are designed to ensure that the client-architect relationship is managed well. This, in turn, can help to drive successful outcomes for both the client and the architect. Based on complaints data available to the ARBV and NSW ARB, cost overruns and delays in completion of construction projects are common sources of complaints by clients, which can lead to relationship break-downs. This data raises questions about whether the way client-architect relationships are being established and managed by architects in practice are consistent with regulatory obligations.

B. Key issues

The client-architect relationship can be affected by various factors, including factors that may be outside an architect’s control

79. The AIA Client Survey (2021) indicates that the most important criteria for clients regarding their service and relationship expectations of architects are that they communicate effectively, they anticipate and respond well to clients’ needs, and that they are strong leaders and good team players.[6] Clients seek relationships with architects that involve meaningful collaboration.[7] The capacity of architects to meet these expectations depends upon various factors, which are largely linked to the type of client and project for which architectural services are sought.

80. Clients of architectural services are diverse and so too are the projects for which architectural services may be sought. Architects may be engaged by owners and end-users for small-scale residential projects, or by developers and builder contractors for large-scale, multi-storey residential and non-residential projects.[8] The degree of knowledge and sophistication, motivations, perspectives and interests of clients are likely to differ in each of these contexts. These differences are likely to have an impact on various aspects of the client-architect relationship, including:

• the way the architect is sourced by the client;
• the client’s preferred profile of the architect;
• the terms of the client-architect agreement;
• the degree of proximity between the architect and the client;
• the degree of influence and control that the architect can exercise in relation to the project; and
• the dynamics of the relationship between the architect and client over the course of the project.

81. So, for example, in the context of large-scale projects where a D&C procurement model is employed, the developer or contractor client is likely to be relatively knowledgeable and sophisticated and, consequently, demanding.[9] Delivery of the construction project on time and within budget will be important drivers for the client. Multiple service providers will typically be involved in delivery of the project. These features will, in turn, have an impact on the terms of the contract between the architect and client and may result in the marginalisation of the role of the architect.[10] The architect’s ability to communicate directly with the client and to exercise quality control may also be compromised.[11]

82. In comparison, for small-scale projects undertaken by an architect for the end-user, the client is likely to be concerned about the quality of the services provided by the architect,[12] but will be less knowledgeable about these services compared to developer and contractor clients. The architect is more likely to interact directly with the client than in the case of larger projects.[13] Delivery of a project within budget will be a particularly important concern for this type of client.[14] However, compared to developer and contractor clients, they will have less ability to dictate and control the budget.

83. The foregoing indicates that an architect’s opportunity to successfully establish a good relationship may be more limited for developer and contractor clients in the context of large-scale projects compared to end-user clients for small-scale residential projects. This inference has been borne out in the NSW Architect Survey (2019). In that survey, architects noted the significant impact of knowledgeable and sophisticated clients on the provision of architectural services.[15] They referred to the ‘constant battles’ with clients in the context of large-scale projects, where the focus is on speed, cost and area of lettable space.[16] The survey also referred to research indicating that, in the context of these types of projects, architects can be viewed as ‘technicians’ rather than experts and that their autonomy and control over a project could be compromised.[17]

Poor communication can compromise client-architect relationships, and is a problem that is not uncommon

84. Good communication is a critically important facet of a client-architect relationship. This is reflected in regulatory requirements in Victoria and NSW, which include obligations that require an architect to ensure that information provided to a client is accurate and unambiguous,[18] to keep the client informed about decisions the client is required to make in relation to the provision of architectural services,[19] to provide information to a client with reasonable promptness to enable the client to make informed decisions,[20] and to notify the client in writing of any circumstances that could prevent provision of services by the architect.[21]

85. In the context of the AIA Client Survey (2021), clients rated effective communication as the most important factor for their relationships with architects.[22] Clients said, ‘We want a firm that is practical and easy to deal with. It is important that they understand our needs. We appreciate collaboration, a firm that is responsive to feedback and an understanding of contemporary practices in the relevant field.’[23] The importance of good communication between architects and clients was also highlighted in a survey of registered architects in Indonesia in 2018.[24] In the context of that survey, architects perceived communication as a crucial indicator of their performance because it helps architects understand clients’ needs and requirements.[25] In contextualising the results of the survey, the author noted that good communication between an architect and client – including clarity, brevity, certainty and comprehensiveness in the information provided to the client – can optimise the architect’s performance. Conversely, poor communication can lead to ambiguity and misinterpretation, which could lead to defective design and project failure.[26] Ambiguity can also lead to distrust and undermine the client-architect relationship.[27]

86. Various reasons have been put forward as causing communication difficulties between architects and clients, some of which are attributable to clients whereas others are caused by architects. In relation to the former, if the contract terms proposed by a client are overly onerous, the architect may be seen as 'difficult' merely because the unfair terms are not accepted. Moreover, clients may frequently change their requirements or provide insufficient feedback to the architect. Regarding the latter, the architect may communicate infrequently or fail to fully consider and reflect the client’s views in the design.[28]

87. Communication difficulties may be exacerbated in cases where the client’s knowledge and familiarity with architectural services is limited. In these cases, the asymmetry in skills, experience and information between the architect and the client means that consumers may not be able to assess the quality of architectural services.[29] This can lead to ‘disorientation’[30] and to feelings of inferiority and helplessness on the part of the client.[31]

88. Such disorientation could be alleviated through effective management of the client-architect relationship, which is geared towards helping the client learn, understand and adjust.[32] A more ‘client-centric’ approach, which is ‘user-friendly’ and involves better communication skills, a greater responsiveness to client feedback, and employs ‘soft skills’ to enhance the client experience could improve architects’ relationships with their clients.[33] Nonetheless, striking the optimal balance between cost of a project, time to complete, and quality can be challenging and failure to do so could have an adverse impact on the client-architect relationship.[34]

89. Moreover, failure to properly communicate with a client can expose an architect to liability. For example, in the Queensland case of Christian Education Ministries – Qld Ltd v Thomson Adsett Pty Ltd,[35] an architect was engaged to design a multi-purpose assembly hall for a school. The school alleged that the architect was given express instructions regarding the size of a basketball court within the assembly hall, but the architect denied having received those instructions. The court found that the architect breached his duty of care to the school for not following the school’s instructions. The court further stated that even if the school had not provided express instructions regarding the size of the basketball court, the architect would have breached his contract with the school or would have been guilty of negligence for failing to clarify those instructions.

Non-compliant client-architect agreements can adversely affect client-architect relationships

90. Client-architect agreements are mandatory under the Victorian and NSW regulatory frameworks. These agreements establish the foundation for and can shape interactions between an architect and client, and help avoid blurring of the line between professional and personal relationships.

91. The ARBV’s complaints data indicates that non-compliant client-architect agreements, and the absence of such agreements, are a common thread in many complaints received by the regulator. Despite the obligation to have a client-architect agreement in place for the provision of architectural services, the ARBV has encountered cases where architects have not entered into such an agreement or, when one is in place, it is not compliant with the detailed requirements set out in the Victorian Code.[36]

92. The absence of a client-architect agreement or one that does not satisfy regulatory requirements could provoke an adversarial relationship between the architect and client, lead to distrust and dispute, and result in outcomes that do not meet the client’s needs or expectations.[37] The ARBV’s complaints data also indicates that the failure to properly scope the architectural services and client’s requirements in a client-architect agreement can have a significant adverse impact on project outcomes for the client.

93. High-level, ambiguous agreements that fail to communicate the detail and specifics of an architectural project could lead to disagreement between the architect and client.[38] As noted by clients in the context of the AIA Client Survey (2021), ‘the documentation produced by an architect can take much of the guesswork out of a project – much more attention to detail is needed to ensure it is delivered as per clients brief’.[39]

94. However, onerous terms of a client-architect agreement under which a client seeks to impose obligations beyond a reasonable standard of care or require an architect to assume responsibility for the performance of other contractors can set the tone for a less than ideal relationship between client and architect and could render the provision of the architect’s services uninsurable.[40] Bespoke contracts used by large developers and contractors and government bodies that apportion risk unfairly and disproportionately are examples where insurance for architects may be unavailable.

95. In practice, the level of detail to be included in a client-architect agreement may need to be tailored to the particular project, with more detail required for relatively complex commissions. Nonetheless, there is scope for the use of standardised agreements both in the context of small-scale residential projects, as well as larger projects involving complex designs. In 2019, the NSW ARB published a ‘Short Form Architect Client Contract’, which is freely available on the NSW ARB’s website.[41] The AIA and ACA have recently republished standard client-architect agreements. However, these agreements are only available to members of those organisations respectively. The Australian Standard AS4122 contains general conditions of contract, which are flexible enough to be used for a wide variety of projects.[42]

96. Even in cases where client-architect agreements are in place, it is important for parties to the agreement to understand the terms of those agreements. In the experience of the NSW ARB, while there is a high level of compliance with the obligation to have a client-architect agreement in place in NSW, some architects and their clients may not have read those agreements or understand the implications of the terms of those agreements for the provision of architectural services. In these cases, the mere existence of a client-architect agreement may be insufficient to avoid a break-down in the client-architect relationship, particularly if the parties do not understand their respective rights and obligations.

97. The UK case of Freeborn & Goldie v Mr Daniel Marcal[43] illustrates the risks of failing to have a client-architect agreement in place. In that case, an architect was engaged to design and develop a pool house in an exclusive London property. Amongst other things, the clients wanted a home cinema room to be included with a ‘sleek modern’ appearance and had kept good records to document their requirements. However, the architect – who did not enter into a written contract with the clients and did not keep minutes of any meetings with the clients or contractors – designed the home cinema room to have more of an industrial feel. The architect was found guilty of negligence for failing to have a clear written agreement with the client and the judge strongly criticised the architect for poor management practices in failing to keep records.

The approach to project costing and architects’ fees can also have an adverse impact on client-architect relationships

98. Various aspects of architects’ fees are regulated under the Victorian and NSW Codes. Under both Codes, the client-architect agreement must set out how professional fees and costs of architectural services will be calculated,[44] reasonable estimates of disbursements (where possible),[45] and a requirement that the architect must inform the client how a change or amendment to the services will affect the professional fees and costs for the services.[46] The Victorian Code further provides that fees and costs should not exceed the fee structure specified in the client-architect agreement,[47] whereas the NSW Code provides that the cost of architectural services should reflect the fee structure specified in the agreement and accurately reflect the amount of work done or to be done.[48]

99. The AIA has stated that the fee for a particular architectural project should be consistent with the scope of services provided and the level of skill the client expects to be applied to the project.[49] It has further stated that ‘It is essential that architect fees reflect the true value of the services delivered’.[50] The NSW ARB understands that concerns exist among clients in relation to architects’ fees where they are determined as a percentage of construction costs, particularly in cases where the percentage is relatively high and the actual construction costs are significantly more than estimated.[51] This is consistent with the AIA Client Survey (2021), which found that 73% of surveyed clients believed architects’ services represented value for money, but concern was expressed about architects’ ‘elastic fees’ and ‘cost blowouts’.[52] Survey participants perceived that these blowouts were due to a gap between the design process and a technical understanding of the construction process, leading to inefficiency and delays.[53] The UK Residential Architecture Study (2019) also found that a percent-based fee structure might be ‘major source of discontent’ for clients.[54] Around 45% of all respondents, and 47% of architects, who participated in that study considered that this fee structure is ‘out-of-date’.[55]

100. Percentage fees may be useful when it is difficult to estimate project costs. In fact, the challenges associated with accurately estimating design costs have been acknowledged, particularly when there is uncertainty as to how the construction process will evolve.[56] Nonetheless, research suggests that an accurate estimate of project fees can help ensure the success of a project, and that the converse is also true – that an inaccurate estimate could result in project failure.[57] Yet, there is evidence indicating that deviation between construction cost estimates and actual construction costs is common in construction projects around the world.[58] The NZ Architect Survey (2016) showed that the most significant factors impacting variability between design estimates and final construction costs in traditionally procured commercial projects included project complexity, expertise and relevant experience of consultants, and quality and flow of information.[59]

101. Notwithstanding the estimation difficulties, cost certainty helps to foster a good relationship with clients.[60] Such certainty could be provided through a scale of architectural fees to guide the establishment of fees by architects for particular projects. However, architectural industry bodies moved away from these scales some time ago on the premise that they would prevent fair trade and competition, although some firms continue to rely upon them. The AIA Client Survey (2021) suggests that architectural firms could instead consider value-based pricing – that is, pricing that is linked to the client’s perceived value of architectural services – which prioritises the delivery of value to the client rather than driving down costs.[61] Nonetheless, the UK Residential Architecture Study (2019) suggests that it may be difficult to identify client value, particularly for certain types of clients.[62]

102. Alternatively, fixed pricing for architectural services could be an option. In fact, almost two thirds of participants in the AIA Client Survey (2021) expressed a preference for fixed price agreements over the traditional cost-based fee model,[63] but this approach would leave architects exposed when unexpected cost blowouts occur. The NSW ARB has encountered cases where architects have quoted extremely low fixed fees in order to remain competitive. This practice could result in poor quality design work and limit the scope for the transfer of business knowledge within architectural practices as well as the potential for architectural firms to grow and flourish because of the tight budgets implied by low fixed fees. Further research on pricing models for architectural services that balance interests and risks of architects and clients respectively could be beneficial.

103. Complaints data available to the NSW ARB indicates that, when there are possible or likely cost blowouts, architects may fail to communicate this to the client in a timely manner. The ARBV has also encountered complaints about overcharging by architects due to defective design that results in rework or duplication of work, as well as cases where architects have billed clients before architectural services have been fully provided.

104. Clearly, the basis for architects’ fees and associated construction costs is a contested and challenging issue, for which there is no readily apparent solution. At a minimum, clarity, transparency and accountability about fees may help to avoid client-relationships being compromised when fees deviate from what was originally estimated or expected and could protect architects from exposure to legal risk. The NSW case of Morris v Leaney [64] highlights the risks for architects when they fail to advise clients about likely construction costs. In that case, the architect was engaged for a residential home renovation. The architect provided an opinion on the ‘probable cost’ of the renovation, which was used to establish the owners’ renovation budget. A builder was subsequently engaged and advised the owners that the renovation costs would far exceed their budget, prompting the owners to revise the scope of the renovation work. The court held that the architect breached his duty to advise the owners on the likelihood of achieving their budget. The architect was expected to inform his clients if he felt unable or unqualified to give an accurate estimate of costs and advise that they obtain an estimate from a properly qualified professional.

Clients’ access to recourse may be limited under current regulatory arrangements, which may deter clients from raising concerns about unprofessional conduct with the regulator

105. While the primary role of the ARBV and NSW ARB is to regulate architects, both Boards are able to receive and consider complaints made by aggrieved clients about architects.[65] Anecdotally, the ARBV and NSW ARB understand that clients may be disinclined to complain about architects’ unprofessional conduct because of limited regulatory power on the part of the Boards to order refund of monies paid by clients, remediation of defective work and payment of compensation.

106. Notably, section 43(4)(b) of the NSW Architects Act empowers the NSW ARB to order the withholding or refunding of part or all of the payment for architectural services that are the subject of a complaint. However, the scope of this power was called into question in a recent decision by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) in Manfredini & McCrae v NSW Architect Registration Board.[66] That case involved an application for administrative review of, among other matters, a decision made by the NSW ARB to order architects found guilty of unprofessional conduct to refund money that was paid for architectural services by the complainants. In the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the complainants were considered to have contributed to the poor performance of architectural services, NCAT considered that the exercise of section 43(4)(b) would not serve the purpose of the disciplinary proceedings against the architects. It was noted that ‘this is not a case of payments made to an architect for work not done: while not to the complainants’ satisfaction, and not strictly in accordance with the terms of the contractual arrangement, the architectural services were provided’.[67]

107. The NSW ARB also has power to mediate between a complainant and architect in an attempt to resolve any issue raised by the complaint, if the Board considers the complaint may be resolved expeditiously by doing so.[68] Similarly, the ARBV has power to refer a complaint to mediation if the Board considers it appropriate to do so,[69] and mediation does not preclude a determination that an inquiry into the fitness to practise or professional conduct of an architect should be held.[70] However, such a referral can only occur with the consent of the person making the complaint and the architect concerned.[71]

C. Findings

108. Architecture as a profession is essentially client-centric.[72] Architects’ ability to properly serve their clients may be limited in the context of some procurement models, but architects otherwise have considerable control over various factors that could be determinative of the client-architect relationship.

109. Communication is core to a successful client-architect relationship. There is evidence to indicate that architects could improve their relationships with their clients through better communication and engagement. Communication and engagement are important in relation to all facets of a project, but particularly so regarding the clients’ requirements, the duration of the project, and the cost of the architect’s fees, as well as builders’ costs.

110. The prevalent basis for establishing architects’ fees, which is tied to construction costs, may cause client-architect disputes. Some disputes could be avoided with greater transparency and clarity about the basis for calculation of fees and the likely implications for overall projects costs. Serious consideration of an alternative basis for charging fees for architectural services (such as value-based pricing and fixed fees) is needed to limit the prospect of price shock that clients can often experience, as this can be damaging for the client-architect relationship.

111. There is also room for improvement in relation to the documentation of client-architect relationships. In Victoria, anecdotal evidence derived from complaints data available to the ARBV indicates that client-architect agreements are absent in some cases and, in other cases where such agreements are in place, questions exist about the extent to which those agreements are compliant with the Victorian Code. Such non-compliance can undermine the effectiveness of agreements in keeping client-architect relationships on track. In NSW, while there appears to be relatively good compliance with the requirement to have a client-architect agreement, it is unclear how well those agreements are understood by architects and their clients, which could defeat their very purpose.

D. Regulatory role

112. The ARBV and NSW ARB have already invested in various initiatives to ensure compliance by architects with regulatory obligations regarding their relationships with clients. For example, the ARBV has issued guidelines about client-architect agreements and professional fees and costs.[73] In addition to the Short Form Architect Client Contract, the NSW ARB has also published a guide for clients about working with architects.[74] Despite these initiatives, the available evidence tends to indicate that there may be more work to be done by the ARBV and NSW ARB in educating architects about their various obligations to clients, particularly in relation to communicating meaningfully with clients and establishing useful and effective client-architect agreements.

113. The ARBV and NSW ARB do not have direct regulatory power to dictate or limit the basis used by architects to establish their fees. However, given the possible link between fees that are based on a percentage of construction costs and compromised client-architect relationships, the educational program for architects regarding architects’ fee obligations could include greater emphasis on the need for and importance of clear and transparent fee arrangements, that are well-understood by clients.

114. Given the critical importance of good client-architect relationships in the context of regulation of the profession, the ARBV and NSW ARB take compliance with architects’ obligations in this context very seriously. Various regulatory powers are available to deal with situations where architects have failed to fulfill their obligations to clients, including the power to refer architects for an inquiry into their fitness to practise or professional conduct.[75] The ARBV and NSW ARB continue to commit to taking appropriate regulatory action when client-architects are mismanaged, particularly when this leads to poor outcomes for the client and end-users.

E. Role of other stakeholders

115. Architects are primarily responsible for their relationships with clients, especially in relation to the matters over which they have control. A service-oriented approach that is focused on good communication and engagement will go a long way in laying the foundation for a productive and effective client-architect relationship. The available evidence indicates that architects need to invest in better relationships with their clients, particularly through more meaningful and useful communication.

116. Industry bodies could have a role to play in encouraging architects to use model client-architect agreements. This could be achieved by making industry-based model agreements freely available. Industry bodies could also play an important role in assisting architects to better understand the meaning and implications of client-architect agreements.

117. On the matter of fees, industry bodies could revisit fee scales to determine whether and how they could be used, particularly in light of ongoing client concerns about the basis for architects’ fees. Concurrently, alternative methods for determining fees that reduce uncertainty for clients could be explored with architects and, if possible, support and assistance could be provided to architects to enable them to utilise those alternatives in practice so that their interests are also protected. In the meantime, given the apparent difficulties faced by architects in estimating construction costs, including to establish architects’ fees that are based on these costs, relevant education and training programs should be revisited.

118. In order to encourage clients to reach out to regulators to alert them to issues regarding the compliance of architects with their professional standards obligations, the profile of the regulators needs to be elevated and the importance of raising unprofessional conduct with them should be highlighted. This will require the support of government, industry bodies and other regulators such as building regulators.

F. Implications and recommendations

G. Areas for further research

[1] A. Dansoh & S. Frimpong, ‘Client perspectives on relationships with architects on private house projects’ (2016) 2(3) International Journal of Qualitative Research in Services, at p. 2. See also Australian Institute of Architects, ‘Client and architect relationship’ (2019) Acumen Practice Notes, at 1.

[2] V. Van der Linden, H. Dong & A. Heylighen, ‘The good client: How architect-client dynamics mediate attention to users’, in Professional Practices in the Built Environment (2017).

[3] J. Adafin, J.O.B. Rotimi, & S. Wilkinson, ‘Risk impact assessments in project budget development: architects’ perspectives’ (2016) 12(3) Architectural Engineering and Design Management, pp. 189–204, at 191.

[4] See in particular, Division 2 (Client Relations) of the Victorian Code and Part 2 (General Practice Standards) and Part 3 (Standards concerning dealings with clients) of the NSW Code.

[5] See clause 4 of the Victorian Code and clause 7 of the NSW Code.

[6] Australian Institute of Architects, n. 85 above, p. 11.

[7] Ibid. p. 19.

[8] O. Arora, S. Das, S. Siva E S, S. A S, & S. Nagdeve, ‘Client expectations in the purview of architecture’ (2021) 9(4) International Journal of Students’ Research in Technology & Management, pp. 40–53, at 41.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Association of Consulting Architects (WA), n. 50 above, p. 15. See also A. Angral, ‘Architect–client relationship and value addition in private residential projects’ (2019) 13(1) Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, pp. 58–71.

[11] CRC Construction Innovation, n. 59 above, p. 13. S. Ahuja, N. Nikolova, & S. Clegg, n. 84 above.

[12] O. Arora et al, n. 101 above, p. 41.

[13] Ibid. p. 41.

[14] Ibid.

[15] S. Ahuja, N. Nikolova, & S. Clegg, n. 84 above, p. 13.

[16] Ibid. p. 13.

[17] Ibid. p. 15.

[18] Clause 7(d) of the Victorian Code. Clause 6(2)(a) of the NSW Code.

[19] Clause 7(a) of the Victorian Code. Clause 6(2)(b) of the NSW Code.

[20] Clause 7(b) of the Victorian Code. Clause 6(1) of the NSW Code.

[21] Clause 8 of the Victorian Code. Clause 14 of the NSW Code.

[22] Australian Institute of Architects, n. 85 above, p. 11.

[23] Ibid. p. 10.

[24] A. Marisa, ‘Analysis of architect’s performance indicators in project delivery process’ (2018) 126 IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, p. 012106.

[25] Ibid. p. 4.

[26] Ibid. p. 3.

[27] N. Norouzi, M. Shabak, M.R.B. Embi, & T.H. Khan, ‘The Architect, the Client and Effective Communication in Architectural Design Practice’ (2015) 172 Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, pp. 635–42, at 635.

[28] Ibid. p. 636.

[29] I. Paterson, ‘Regulation of Professional Services: Lawyers & Notaries, Accountants, Architects & Engineers, Pharmacists’ (2006) Proceedings of OeNB Workshops(10) Strategies for Employment and Growth in Austria, at 58–9.

[30] J. Siva & K. London, ‘Client learning for successful architect‐client relationships’ (2012) 19(3) Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, pp. 253–68.

[31] A. Dansoh & S. Frimpong, n. 94 above, p. 1.

[32] J. Siva & K. London, n. 123 above.

[33] Australian Institute of Architects, n. 85 above, pp. 19–20. A. Angral, n. 103 above.

[34] A. Angral, n. 103 above, p. 69.

[35] [2015] QDC 292.

[36] Clause 4(2) of the Victorian Code sets out the matters that must be included in the client-architect agreement. The equivalent provision in the NSW Code is clause 7(2).

[37] Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Guiding Principles for Balanced and Insurable Client/Architect Agreements (2005), at p. 3.

[38] Ibid. pp. 4–5.

[39] Australian Institute of Architects, n. 85 above, p. 23.

[40] Ibid. pp. 4–5.

[41] The Short Form Contract published by the NSW ARB is accessible at: https://www.architects.nsw.gov.au/news/537-nsw-arb-short-form-architect-client-contract-2019.

[42] However, the ACA notes that AS4122 is not intended for use in a design and construct context or where the client intends to novate the contract. See the ACA’s website accessible at: https://aca.org.au/as4122-2010-general-conditions-of-contract/.

[43] [2019] EWHC 454.

[44] Clause 4(2)(e) of the Victorian Code. Clause 7(2)(b) of the NSW Code.

[45] Clause 4(2(f) of the Victorian Code. Clause 7(2)(e) of the NSW Code.

[46] Clause 4(2)(j) of the Victorian Code. Clause 7(2)(i) of the NSW Code.

[47] Clause 6(b) of the Victorian Code.

[48] Clause 7(3) of the NSW Code.

[49] AIA, ‘Fees’, Acumen Practice Notes (published 23 October 2015, edited 31 March 2020).

[50] Ibid.

[51] As noted on the NSW ARB’s website, the Board has recorded a rise in calls and complaints against architects related to project cost overruns, accessible at: https://www.architects.nsw.gov.au/news/402-boom-sends-costs-through-the….

[52] Australian Institute of Architects, n. 85 above, p. 20.

[53] Ibid. p. 20.

[54] A. Angral, n. 103 above.

[55] Ibid. p. 66.

[56] T.H. Dandan, G. Sweis, L.S. Sukkari, & R.J. Sweis, ‘Factors affecting the accuracy of cost estimate during various design stages’ (2020) 18(4) Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, pp. 787–819, at 788.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Studies in the UK, Middle East, Asia and Africa are referenced in J. Adafin, J.O.B. Rotimi, & S. Wilkinson, n. 96 above, p. 191.

[59] J. Adafin, J.O.B. Rotimi, & S. Wilkinson, n. 96 above.

[60] H. Xiao & D.G. Proverbs, ‘Cost certainty and time certainty: an international investigation’, in D. J. Greenwood (ed.) 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, (2003), pp. 23–32.

[61] Australian Institute of Architects, n. 85 above, p. 21.

[62] A. Angral, n. 103 above, p. 67.

[63] Australian Institute of Architects, n. 85 above, p. 21.

[64] [2022] NSWCA 95.

[65] Part 4 of the Victorian Architects Act. Part 4, Division 2 of the NSW Architects Act.

[66] [2021] NSWCATOD 116.

[67] Ibid. para. 262.

[68] Section 40(2) of the NSW Architects Act.

[69] Section 18A(1) of the Victorian Architects Act.

[70] Section 18J of the Victorian Architects Act.

[71] Section 18A(2) of the Victorian Architects Act.

[72] O. Arora, S. Das, S. Siva E S, S. A S, & S. Nagdeve, n. 101 above, p. 40.

[73] These guidelines are available on the ARBV’s website accessible at: https://www.vic.gov.au/arbv-architect-guidelines.

[74] The ‘Working with your Architect’ consumer guide is available on the NSW ARB’s website accessible at: https://www.architects.nsw.gov.au/publications.

[75] See Part 4 of the Victorian Architects Act (Disciplinary proceedings) and Part 4 of the NSW Architects Act (Complaints and disciplinary proceedings).