BPEQ v N

18 Jun BPEQ v N

This case was a prosecution by the Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland (Board) against an unregistered person (de-identified as N) in the Magistrates Court of Queensland (Court).

Charges

The charges against N alleged that N presented himself as a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ) despite not being registered as at the time, that N used the title of ‘RPEQ’ despite not being a RPEQ, and that N carried out professional engineering services despite not being registered.

In addition, there was a further charge of failing to supply a document as requested by the investigator appointed to consider the charges.

N’s Background

N was not registered as a RPEQ at any time while undertaking the work in respect of which the complaint was made. At the time of the conduct, N held a diploma in civil engineering, and was continuing studies to obtain a bachelor of civil engineering.

Conduct of N

N was engaged by a body corporate to inspect a retaining wall in need of repair or replacing at a property in Brisbane. N attended the property in to perform a site inspection.

N subsequently prepared an inspection report which contained the findings of his inspection of the retaining wall, and included drawings for a proposed replacement retaining wall. N also issued a Form 15 Certificate for the construction of the retaining wall in accordance with the drawings N had prepared. N was not a RPEQ at any time when providing these professional engineering services in relation to the retaining wall.

Following a complaint being made to the Board in relation to N’s conduct, an investigator was appointed to consider the complaint. N received a notice in September 2007 requiring that a particular document be supplied to the investigator; however N failed to supply the document.

What the Court Said

In this instance, the matter did not proceed to a hearing before the Court, but was settled by a formal agreement between the parties which was considered and adopted by the Court. N agreed N was guilty of the charges of presenting N as a RPEQ, using the title of ‘RPEQ’ and carrying out professional engineering services despite not being registered at the time, and of failing to supply a document as requested by the appointed investigator. The parties agreed that a conviction should not be recorded given this was N’s first offence.

Consequences for N

The parties recommended to the Court that the appropriate penalty was for N to pay a monetary penalty and the Board’s costs. The Court subsequently made an order confirming the recommendations made to the Court by the parties, ordering that N was guilty of the charges and was convicted, although no conviction was recorded.