The recent decision of the District Court in Yousef Al-Afaghani v IPENZ [2026] NZDC 10110 provides important guidance on the registration and re-registration process for Chartered Professional Engineers (“CPEng”) in New Zealand, particularly regarding the role of “complex engineering work” in competency assessments.
The case arose after the Chartered Professional Engineers Council upheld a decision declining the renewal of Mr Al-Afaghani’s CPEng registration. Mr Al-Afaghani, an experienced mechanical engineer and heavy vehicle specialist certifier, appealed that decision to the District Court.
Background
Mr Al-Afaghani has worked in the heavy vehicle engineering sector for many years and has operated an engineering consultancy since 2008. He was first registered as a Chartered Professional Engineer in 2013.
In considering his renewal application, the Registration Authority concluded that his submitted work samples were both:
- insufficiently complex; and
- of inadequate quality.
The appeal ultimately focused on two major issues:
- whether the Council properly performed its role as an appellate body; and
- whether the Council correctly interpreted the legal framework governing CPEng registration.
The Court’s Findings
The Council Failed to Properly Engage With the Appeal
Judge Nicholls held that the Council did not adequately engage with Mr Al-Afaghani’s detailed responses to criticisms made about his work samples.
The Court observed that Mr Al-Afaghani had provided detailed rebuttals to many of the Registration Authority’s findings, including references to technical documents and calculations intended to demonstrate that several criticisms were incorrect.
While the Council acknowledged that at least one criticism was demonstrably wrong, the Court found that the Council largely repeated the Assessment Panel’s conclusions without properly analysing the alleged errors itself.
Judge Nicholls stated:
“This falls well short of the role on appeal, which is to engage with the errors that are claimed by the appellant…”
The decision reinforces that appeal bodies must genuinely grapple with substantive challenges raised by appellants rather than simply restating earlier conclusions.
“Complex Work” Is Not an Absolute Requirement
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the judgment concerns the interpretation of the statutory competency criteria under the Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Rules.
The Registration Authority and the Council had treated “complex engineering work” as a mandatory prerequisite for registration. The District Court rejected that approach.
Judge Nicholls held that while complexity is an important consideration, the legislation does not establish it as an absolute requirement in every case. Instead, the Rules require the Registration Authority to take complexity into account when assessing whether an engineer meets the overall standard of a reasonable professional engineer practising competently in their field.
Importantly, the Court held that:
- the statutory framework allows for the possibility that a competent engineer in a particular practice area may not routinely engage in highly complex work; and
- complexity is not necessarily a binary issue and may vary depending on the nature of the engineer’s practice area.
The Court stated:
“The legal framework does not rule out the possibility of the Registration Authority concluding that an applicant who does not engage in complex work satisfies the overall standard.”
Why This Decision Matters
This decision is likely to be significant for engineers seeking registration or renewal under the CPEng regime, particularly those practising in specialised or highly practical engineering fields where work may not always fit traditional notions of “complex engineering activity”.
The judgment confirms that:
- competency assessments must be conducted fairly and transparently;
- appellate bodies must meaningfully address substantive grounds of challenge;
- “complexity” is a mandatory consideration, but not necessarily an absolute threshold requirement; and
- the assessment process must remain flexible enough to recognise differing engineering practice areas.
Outcome
The District Court allowed the appeal and referred Mr Al-Afaghani’s application back to the Registration Authority for reconsideration under the correct legal framework.
The decision serves as an important reminder that professional regulatory bodies must apply statutory criteria carefully and remain open to the realities of differing professional practice environments.