The appellant is a Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng) who has serious concerns about the work of the respondents (his former colleagues), both of whom are also CPEngs and who continue to work for the engineering company where the appellant was formerly employed. The appellant has serious concerns that the respondents' actions have compromised the safety of a building. He also alleges that the respondents have put his name to the work without his permission.
The appeal was declined. The panel found that the final design output including the issuing of the PS1 was appropriate and there were no grounds for discipline. The panel also found that much of the evidence was irrelevant to this appeal and should have been raised as new complaints.