Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Announcement

ICE disciplinary board March 11, 2011, Mr Reza Amirabgir, Mr Anthony Sheehy

On 11 March 2011, the Disciplinary Board considered allegations of improper conduct against a Graduate member, Mr Reza Amirabg ir, Membership Number 63272518, of Hove.

The disciplinary board found Mr Amirabgir guilty of Improper Conduct in relation to the allegations against him in that he had breached by-laws 35 and 36 and Rule 1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
By-law 35 requires all members to order their conduct so as to uphold the dignity, standing and reputation of the Institution.

By-law 36(4) lays down that “improper conduct” shall mean any conduct, other than that laid down in by-law 36(1) - (3), which shall indicate unfitness to be a member or shall otherwise be unbefitting to a member as such.
Under by-law 35, the Council is empowered to make Rules of Conduct to be observed by all members to ensure the fulfilment of the requirements of by-law 35. Rule 1 of these Rules of Professional Conduct states: “All members shall discharge their professional duties with integrity”.

Under the powers conferred on it by by-law 40, the disciplinary board ordered that Mr Amirabgir should be severely reprimanded and fined £500 and that the fact and particulars of the order against him should be posted in the Institution and published.

Mr Anthony Sheehy

On 11 March 2011, the Disciplinary Board considered allegations of improper conduct against a Graduate member, Mr Anthony Sheehy, Membership Number 60865366, of South London.

It was alleged that Mr Sheehy had used the designations CEng MICE, to which he was not entitled, on a business card for his company, ‘DRAFT3D’ which he presented to a prospective client. It was also alleged that when Mr Sheehy subsequently produced structural calculations for alterations to the client’s house, he failed to reply to queries from the Local Authority Building Control Department about his calculations, and did not reply to his client’s repeated requests to him to do so.

The Disciplinary Board found Mr Sheehy guilty of improper conduct in relation to the allegation against him in that he had breached by-laws 34, 35 and 36 and Rule 1 of the rules of professional conduct.
By-law 34 states that a member may not use a designation to which the member is not entitled.

By-law 35 requires all members to order their conduct so as to uphold the dignity, standing and reputation of the Institution.

By-law 36(4) lays down that “improper conduct” shall mean any conduct, other than that laid down in by-law 36(1) - (3), which shall indicate unfitness to be a member or shall otherwise be unbefitting to a member as such.
Under by-law 35, the Council is empowered to make Rules of Conduct to be observed by all members to ensure the fulfilment of the requirements of by-law 35. Rule 1 of these Rules of Professional Conduct states: “All members shall discharge their professional duties with integrity”.

Under the powers conferred on it by by-law 40, the disciplinary board ordered that Mr Sheehy should be expelled from the Institution and that the fact and particulars of the order against him, and the details of the improper conduct of which he had been found guilty, should be posted in the Institution and published.

In making the order against Mr Sheehy, the disciplinary board noted that on 17 September 2009, Mr Sheehy had appeared before the disciplinary board to answer the allegation that he had described himself as MICE in a report he had submitted to a London Council. In relation to this allegation, the disciplinary board found Mr Sheehy guilty of improper conduct, and ordered that he should be severely reprimanded and fined £200.

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.