Engineer in private practise: The need for registration

(a) Engineer means “Registered Engineer” (in private practice). In private practice, according to Registration of Engineers Act 1967, the engineer must be construed as “registered engineer” – section 2 of the Act (either as a Consulting Engineer – Regulation 34, Registration of Engineers Regulations 1990, or as a Professional Engineer – Regulation 19, Registration of Engineers Regulations 1990). According to section 7(1) of Registration of Engineers Act 1967,

7. (1) No person shall unless he is a registered Professional Engineer –

a)                        Practise, carry on business or take up employment as an Engineer under any name, style or title bearing the words “Professional Engineer”, “Registered Engineer” or the equivalent thereto in any other language or bearing any other word whatsoever in any language which may reasonably be construed to imply that he is a registered Professional Engineer;

b)                        Use or display any sign, board, card or other device representing or implying that he is a registered Professional Engineer; or

c)Be entitled to recover in any court any fee, charge or remuneration for any professional advice or services rendered as an Engineer.

Unregistered engineer offers or giving professional service will be facing the following consequences--        

a) Under section 25 of Registration of Engineers Act 1967:

   25. (1)  Any person who contravenes this Act shall be guilty of an offence and shall, where no penalty is expressly provided therefore, be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding two thousand ringgits.

   (2)  If a body corporate contravenes this Act, every director, manager, secretary or other similar officer thereof shall be guilty of the same offence and be liable to the same penalty as the body corporate is guilty of and liable to, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, consent or connivance or was not attributable to any neglect on his part.

b) Raymond Banham’s principles:

Raymond Banham & Anor v Consolidated Hotels Ltd. The plaintiffs, a firm of consulting Mechanical and Electrical Engineers, practising in Hong Kong, sued the defendant clients for professional fees of $106,250 in connection with the proposed Hotel Sheraton project in Singapore.  The defendants refused to pay on the ground that the agreement for services was illegal and unenforceable because the plaintiffs were not registered in Singapore as professional engineers. Winslow J held that although the plans for the hotel were prepared in Hong Kong and the firm’s representatives travelled periodically to Singapore solely for the purposes of this project, nevertheless, they were engaged in professional engineering work in Singapore for the purposes of the Professional Engineers Act.  As such they were required to be registered as professional engineers.  ‘Services were being performed under this contract which was illegal in that their engineers never took steps to get them registered beforehand nor to engage in such services under the direction or supervision of a registered professional engineer.’

NOTE: The above is part of lecture notes prepared by me, for EUP222: Engineer in Society, Sch. of Civil Engineering, USM.