(1987)1987January30 [A LOIZOU,DEMETRIADES,PIKIS, JJ] 1 READ KOROPOULLI, 2 ROULA L DEMETRIOU, Appellants-Defendants, ν SOFOKLIS AVRAAM, Respondent-Plaintiff (CivilAppeal 6867) Architects and Civil Engineers—Supervising or overseeing implementation of architectural plans—Whether building technicianslicensed assuch under Law 41/62 entitledtosuperviseabuildingbeyond theirauthonty to sketch architecturally orcivilengmeenng wise—Negativeanswer given—Relevant agreement voidfor illegality—77ieArchitectsandCivilEngineersLaw 41/62 as amended by Laws 41/68 and 84/68—Section 10, 11
(1)andthe ft«r proviso tos 11
(1)—The ContractLaw,Cap 149,sections24 and 23
(1)Words and Phrases 'Befitting* (Προσήκουσα) insection 11
(1)of theArchitects and CivilEngineers Law 41/62 asamended by Laws 41/68 and 84/68 The question inthis case concerns the authonty of building technicians 10 licensed as such under Law 41/62 to supervise or oversee the implementation of architectural plans concerning buildings beyond their authonty tosketch achitecturally orcivilengmeenng wise Though the claim of the respondent was only foran amount due for the supervision ofbuilding work, the supervision was but an aspect ofawider 15 agreement between the parties involving preparation bythe respondent of architectural plans, anact admittedly beyond his authonty The trial Court confined its deliberation totheaspect of supervision as if it were a selfcontainedagreement andtooktheviewthat,intheabsence of adefinition of thecompass oftheprofession ofan architectordvilengineerandofevidence 20 as tosuch compass, supervising oroverseeing abuilding isnot within the exclusive scope ofsuch profession Asa result judgment w*sgiven for the plaintiff/respondent 78 5 1C.L.R. 5 10 10 ~ Koropoulll νJ\vraam Held,allowing theappeal:{1)Onproperanalysis oftherelevant legislative provisions (sections10and 11
(1)of Law41/62 asamended)theoutcomeisa general prohibitiononanyoneundertakingthework of anarchitectoracivil engineer. The prohibition is subject to exceptions in the first proviso to s.l 1
(1)Buildingtechniciansarespecifically forbidden from undertakingwork befitting (ττροσήκουσαν)anarchitectoracivil engineer,unless{which isnot thecasehere)theheightorvolumeofthebuilding islimitedasspecified inthe taw.
(2)Itisunlikely thatthelegislature intendedtoleave thepenalprovisions of the Law (section 10) subject to evidence dependent on knowledge and practice relevant to the profession of an architect or a civil engineer. More likely itwas inthecontemplationof thelegislature toqualify therangeofsuch profession by reference to the provisions of the law The word «befitting» (προσήκουσα) should not be read in isolation. The proviso to s.l 1
(1)explicitly qualifies itby stating immediately thereafter thatwork concerning buildings of a specified height and volume may be undertaken by building techniciansas well.
(3)Architecturalandstructuralplansarethefirst step;theirimplementation on the land the second. The two aspects of the work are inextricably connecieu.
(4)Inthelight of theabove theagreementleading tothework carriedout by therespondentwas prohibitedby law andassuchvoid (s.24 of Cap.149), -involving thegivingof anillegal considerationinthesense of section23
(1)ot Cap.
- 20 Appealallowedwith costs. Casesreferredto: Carneyv. Herbertand Others[1985]1All E.R.
- Appeal. Appeal bydefendantsagainstthejudgmentoftheDistrictCourt 25 ofLamaca(Constantinides,S.D.J.)datedthe17thJanuary,1985, (Action No.1036/79) whereby.they were adjudged to pay to plaintiff thesumof£947.20 balance dueforservicesrenderedby plaintiff as a supervising building technician for the erection of a 79 Pilds J. Koropoulli v.Avraam
(1987)multi-storey building. A.Poetis,for the appellants. Z. Mylonas,for the respondent. Cur.adv. vult. A.LOIZOUJ.: The judgment of the Court willbe delivered by Pikis,J. 5 PIKIS,J.:The focal pointinthisappeal,asbefore thetrialCourt earlier on, is the scope of the authority of building technicians licensed assuchundertheArchitectsandCivilEngineersLaw (41/ 62), as amended, to undertake work incidental to the 10 implementation of architectural plans. Specifically, the question concerns their authority to supervise or oversee the implementation of achitectural plans concerning buildings beyond theirauthoritytosketcharchitecturallyorcivilengineering wise. If the answer is in the negative and they are entitled to 15 undertake thesupervisionofthebuildingorpremisesbeyondtheir authority, the judgment must be upheld; otherwise it must be overruled for as the trial Court noted, and we are of the like opinion, if such supervision is, under the law, work exclusively befitting an architect or civil engineer, any agreement made in 20 breach of the statutory prohibition is illegal and as such unenforceable in law. In fact, the assumption by a person unregistered assuch ofthe work ofan architect ora civil engineer is, by virtue of the provisions of s.10 of Law 41/62, a criminal offence, exposing the usurper to criminalsanctions. 25 Seemingly, the supervision assumed in this case by the respondent of the building of a multi-storeyed block offlats,was but an aspect of a wider agreement involving the preparation of thearchitecturalplans,anactadmittedlybeyondthepowersofthe respondent.Theclaimoftherespondentwasconfined torecovery 30 of the amount due for the supervision of building work. Presumably the partiestooktheviewtheaspectofthe agreement with regard to supervision wasseverable from the restand could be litigated independently therefrom. The Court did not inquire 80 1 C.L.H. KoropouUl v.Avrflam PUtlaJ. intotheamenityofseverance, particularly whetheritwas possible, in view olthe manifest illegality of the contract toprepare the architectural plans*, and confined its deliberations to the part of the contractconcerning supervision asifit were a self-contained 5 agreement. Be thatas itmay, the appeal before usisconfined to the question elicitated above which, reproduced in plain language, isthe following:Doesabuilding technicianhave authority under Law 41/62 to supervise the implementation of architectural plans hewas 10 unauthorised to make, not being either an architect ora civil engineer? Seemingly, aninference from the statement ofclaim, the plans transposed intoabuilding under the supervision ofthe respondent were his own. The learned trial Judge found for the building technician 15 holding thatasamatterof constructionofthe relevant proviso to s.l 1
(1)- Law 41/62 (as amended)**, supervision of the implementation* of architectural plans, including the civil engineering aspects of them, was not work that necessarily befitted an architectora civil engineer and as such its assumption 20 by Λ building technicianwas notprohibited by law. Secondly, the .Court ruled that tothe extent thatthe nature of work befitting an architect or a civil engineer felt tobe considered byreference to the compass of thework of these two classesof professionals, the appellants failed tosatisfy the Court that supervision was work .25 exclusively in theirdomain.yiewed_from eitherof thetwo angles the appellants failed tomake out their case of illegality of the agreement. And judgment was given forthe agreed amount of £947.20 cents, representing agreed or reasonable remuneration for thesupervision of building work in question. In order to 30 appreciate thequestion posed in itstrue context, itis essential to refer tothelegislativescheme given effect toby theArchitects and Civil Engineers Law, aprocess apttothrow light on thenatureof the restrictive provisions ofthe first proviso tos.l1
(1)ofthe law. The principal object ofthe law was to confine the exercise ofthe 35 profession of anarchitectand acivilengineer toqualified persons •See.interaba,Cameyv. Herbertand Others1198511 AllE.R. 43S(PC). " Law 41/68 and Law 84/68. 81 ttkUJ. Koroppuliiv.Avfaam
(1987)registered as such in the statutory roll. To this arrangement there were exceptions. Architects by occupation, licensed building techniciansandsub-engineers were authorisedtoundertake work befitting (προσήκουσαν)an architect or a civil engineer subject to an important qualification: WorK to be undertaken by them 5 should be limited by reference to the height or volume of the building. Inevery otherrespect they were inthesame position as everyone elsewho was neitheran architect noracivil engineer. The prohibition to the assumption of architectural or civil engineering work iscoupled with criminalsanctions.Section 10of 10 the law makes itan offence for anyone tocarry outthe profession of an architect or civil engineer or render services incidental to either profession or hold himself out as entitled to render such services. Significantly, s.10 makes no reference to any class or persons otherthanarchitectsorcivilengineers. Onproperanalysis 15 of the legislative provisions the outcome is a general prohibition onanyoneundertakingthework ofanarchitectoracivilengineer. The prohibition is subject to exceptions, those contained in the first proviso to s.ll(l). Building technicians are specifically forbidden from undertaking work befitting (προσήκουσαν) an 20 architect or a civil engineer, unless the height or volume of the building is limited, as specified in the law. Here itis admittedthat thebuilding, theerectionofwhich therespondentsupervised was, inheight andvolume, beyond the limitationsabove referred to. The learned trial Judge took theview, as may be inferred from 25 thetenorof hisjudgment, thatintheabsence of adefinition oftht compass of the profession of an architect or a civil engineer, supervising or overseeing a building is not within the exclusive scope of their profession. The Court rested its judgment on the literal meaning of «προσήκουσα» (befitting) and inthe absence 30 of acleardefinition of thecompassoftheprofession ofanarchitect or a civil engineer, orsatisfactory evidence thatsupervision of the implementation of architectural plans on the ground must necessarily be treated as anaspect of thework of anarchitectora civil engineer, concluded the agreement was not tainted with 35 illegality. 82 1C.L.R. KoropoulU v A m i n · FtkteJ. We consider itunlikely thatthelegislature intendedtoleave the scope of the penal provisions of the law subject to evidence dependent on knowledge and practice relevant tothe profession of an architect or a civil engineer. It is more likely it was in the 5 contemplation of the legislature to qualify the range of the profession of anarchitectanda civil engineer by reference tothe provisions of thelaw. Inourjudgmenttheyaccomplishedthistask. The word «προσήκουσα» (befitting), if read in isolation, might render the restrictive provisions of the law dependent on the 10 adductionof evidence respecting therangeoftheprofession of an architect or a civil engineer. The proviso however to s.ll(l) explicitly qualifies theword «befitting» (προσήκουσα) by stating immediately thereafter that work concerning buildings of the specified height and volume may be undertaken by building 15 technicians as well. In other words, such work befits not only architectsandcivil engineers butlicensed technicians,too. Hence theword «προσήκουσα» (befitting) isdefined withoutdistinction by reference tothebuildings plannedandbuilt. The competence of architects and civil engineers and those 20 licensed, subject to restriction,to carry out architecturaland civil engineering work, issolely defined by reference totheheightand volume of thebuilding. Architectural andstructuralplansare the first step; their implementationon the land the second. The two aspects of the work are inextricably connected. The 25 implementation of the plans is a direct sequence of the architecturalandstructuralplanning,vital forthe sustenariceof the standardsof architecture and structural safety set by thelaw. This is the meaning in which the compass of architectural and civil engineeringworkisreferred tointheprovisionsofs.10prohibiting 30 the assumption of such work by anyone other than a registered architectora civil engineer. Inourjudgment,theagreement leading tothework carriedout by the respondent was prohibited by the law and as such void (s.24) involving thegiving of an illegal considerationin the sense 35 of s.23(l) of the Contract Law - Cap.149. 83 PittaJ. KoropouUlv.Avraatn (198Ϊ) Theappeal isallowedwithcosts.ThejudgmentofthetrialCourt isset aside,substitutedbyanorderdismissingthe action. Appeal allowed withcosts. 84