informing him. The Respondent’s report was said to be biased leading to the immediate dismissal of the Complainant on the project. The Client also refused to pay the Complainant for outstanding fees and the complainant suffered loss of income and credibility as a result thereof. The Respondent was said to have compromised the position of the Complainant by his actions, which were solely for the Respondent’s benefit. 42. C van Dyk v The Respondent allegedly (2011/02/08-60) No prima facie J C van Tonder allowed an unregistered person evidence of improper Pr Eng to sign off completion conduct. (750403) certificates, using Respondent’s profession credentials. 43. Dr T Scholtz v It is alleged that the first (2013/10/28 42) No prima facie – J R Müller Pr Respondent acted as both evidence of improper Eng (760565) contractor and registered conduct. & professional in respect of the 44. J G Claassen Complainant’s home. The first Pr Eng Respondent did not disclose (910241) this conflict of interest to the Complainant. The first Respondent then proceeded to (2013/10/28 43) – act as an expert witness acting on behalf of the second Respondent after being suspended by the NHBRC. It
informing him. The Respondent’s report was said to be biased leading to the immediate dismissal of the Complainant on the project. The Client also refused to pay the Complainant for outstanding fees and the complainant suffered loss of income and credibility as a result thereof. The Respondent was said to have compromised the position of the Complainant by his actions, which were solely for the Respondent’s benefit. 42. C van Dyk v J C van Tonder Pr Eng (750403) The Respondent allegedly allowed an unregistered person to sign off completion certificates, using Respondent’s profession credentials. (2011/02/08-60) No prima facie evidence of improper conduct. 43. Dr T Scholtz v J R Müller Pr Eng (760565) & J G Claassen Pr Eng (910241) It is alleged that the first Respondent acted as both contractor and registered professional in respect of the Complainant’s home. The first Respondent did not disclose this conflict of interest to the Complainant. The first Respondent then proceeded to act as an expert witness acting on behalf of the second Respondent after being suspended by the NHBRC. It (2013/10/28 – 42) No prima facie evidence of improper conduct. 44. (2013/10/28 – 43)
RNW1776-161005.docx