The charge against Chapman alleged that he needed to take further steps to clarify whether the building was safe for occupation and to pass on to the tenants the reports, emails or other correspondence that contained information relevant to the safety of the building.
The tribunal found Chapman failed to meet industry standards in both respects and that his failure to pass on information or seek clarification from engineers put the owners of Southern Ink, its employees and it customers at risk.
While Chapman failed to meet these standards, the tribunal determined that it did not constitute disgraceful conduct.
"Mr Chapman's conduct in not enquiring into, or seeking clarification of, the information he was given by HCG then passing that information on to Southern Ink, and by not addressing, himself, the questions whether the Southern Ink premises were safe for occupation, did not meet the relevant industry standards by a considerable measure," the report said.
"However, we are not able to conclude that his failure to meet those standards was to such an extent that we could find that it would reasonably be considered by agents of good standing, or reasonable members of the public, as disgraceful.
"The tribunal does not find the charge of disgraceful conduct proved."
The report concluded that nothing the tribunal said in its decision was an indication that the tribunal has any view as to the culpability for Mr McEachen's death.
"The tribunal does not (and cannot) have such view," it said.
