Brothel brothers' company seeks more charges

John Chow (left) and his brother Michael Chow of the Chow Group. Photo / Paul Estcourt

Sex entrepreneurs John and Michael Chow want the Department of Labour to lay more charges against one of their companies.

Willis St Parking faces two charges under the Health and Safety in Employment Act relating to the demolition of the former Settlement Restaurant in Wellington's Willis St.

The Chow brothers, whose wealth stems from their sex and property development businesses, planned to build a temporary car park on the site of the historic building, which is now vacant.

The Department of Labour alleges the Chow brothers' company failed to take all practicable steps to ensure workers on the site were not harmed by asbestos and live electricity while the building was being demolished between January 19 and 20 this year.

One charge relates to potential harm to contractors C and M Transport, while the other relates to potential harm to subcontractors Concrete Drilling and Cutting Ltd.

The charges carry a maximum penalty of $250,000.

Willis St Parking's lawyer, Noel Sainsbury, today argued the potential harm posed by the asbestos and the live electricity were two separate matters, and should be dealt with in different charges.

The company, which has not yet entered a plea, would be unable to plead guilty to the electricity allegations but defend itself against the more serious asbestos allegations if they fell under the same charge.

While the department's summary of facts set out the separate allegations, the particulars needed to be made clear in the charges, Mr Sainsbury said.

"What I'm trying to do is make them nail their colours to the mast," he said.

The department's lawyer, Greg La Hood, argued for the charges to remain as they were.

Asked by Judge Chris Tuohy whether he wanted the charges to remain because the department was out of time to press further charges, Mr La Hood said that was not the main reason.

Failure to take all practicable steps encompassed both matters and they did not need to be dealt with separately, he said.

Judge Tuohy said it was an unusual case because he was not aware of another in which two different types of harm were alleged under the same charge.

He reserved his decision until tomorrow.