CTV building collapse: Design company owner knew employee ‘lacked the necessary experience to design such buildings’ and ‘failed to provide adequate supervision’
Facial recognition in supermarkets hailed a success, tensions rise amid the ongoing conflict in Lebanon and can your boss really force you back to the office?
But he “strongly rejects” the decision, vowing to appeal it and describing the process as “a witch hunt”.
Dr Alan Reay – owner of Alan Reay Consultants – was criticised by the families of those killed in the collapse for allowing his inexperienced structural engineer David Harding “sole responsibility” for designing the CTV building.
Reay went before an Engineering New Zealand Disciplinary Committee last year.
Police and volunteers work to rescue people trapped in the collapsed CTV building. Photo / NZH
The committee released its decision on the “longstanding” complaint today.
“The complaint was that Dr Reay’s employee who designed the building lacked the necessary experience to design such buildings, and that Dr Reay knew this and failed to provide adequate supervision,” the decision stated.
“The committee found Dr Reay’s conduct fell well below the accepted professional standards in 1986 and breached the Code of Ethics at the time.”
The committee noted the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission of Inquiry established Reay knew the building’s layout could create excessive torsional response – twisting – but that he did not check the design.
The CTV building has become a symbol of the February 2011 Earthquake - when it collapsed and killed 115 people. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Reay maintained it was the design engineer’s responsibility to bring any issues to his attention.
The committee found the CTV building was an “irregular, highly eccentric, multi-storey building” and heard that “when there was shaking in one direction, the building was much more prone to twisting”.
It heard the design engineer had not previously worked on buildings of such scale.
The committee found that although Reay “considered himself responsible for the projects completed by his company” his oversight of the design engineer was “virtually non-existent”.
Further, it found the design engineer “did not have the necessary experience to design or have sole responsibility for the design of the CTV building” – and Reay’s decision to give that person “responsibility to design the CTV building and take a ‘hands-off’ approach was inconsistent with the acceptable standards of the day”.
“Nothing can bring back the 115 people whose lives were taken in this tragedy. I hope the committee’s decision provides closure and relief, and my heart goes out today to the CTV families and the people of Christchurch,” said Engineering New Zealand chief executive Dr Richard Templer.
Alan Reay, of Christchurch company Alan Reay Consultants Ltd. Photo / NZ Herald
He acknowledged “long and fraught” process to get to today’s decision had taken a “considerable toll” on the victims of the CTV collapse and their families.
The complaint was made in 2012 and was put on hold between 2014 and 2019 due to other legal proceedings involving Reay.
Templer said the significance of today’s decision is “accountability”.
“This was always going to be a difficult case for Engineering New Zealand, given its complexity and that nearly 40 years have passed since the building was designed,” he said.
“I’m extremely grateful to the Disciplinary and Investigating Committees who have studiously examined the complaint to determine whether Dr Reay’s conduct met the accepted professional standards of the day – and found it did not.”
The committee ordered that Reay be “admonished” and fined $750.
He must also pay costs of $1000.
Templer said the committee also believed Reay should “consider issuing a public apology for his failure to adequately supervise the design engineer”.
The CTV families: Numerous deficiencies led to loss of lives
CTV families group spokesman Maan Alkaisi said they were pleased with the committee’s decision.
“The numerous design deficiencies led to the tragic collapse of the CTV building and the loss of 115 precious lives,” he said.
“Although the decision came after a long 13-year wait, and the penalties do not match the impact of the tragedy and loss, this officially confirms that Alan Reay was responsible for the design and is held accountable for the lack of supervision over the design and construction of the building.
“The decision justifies our long-standing to fight for justice and accountability and confirms that our request for a thorough and transparent investigation was warranted, and should continue.
“The decision also should send a strong message to all engineers, local authorities and government departments to keep human lives and safety foremost in their minds when considering the design, construction, maintenance and inspection of structures where people work and live.”
The families hoped that lessons were learned from their tragic experience and measures would be in place in future to prevent similar incidents.
“We wish that lessons be learned from this tragic experience and measures to prevent this from happening again is taken seriously by the City Council, the Solicitor General office and related departments in the Government.
Maan Alkaisi, who lost his wife in the collapse of the CTV building in 2011, says it is outrageous Engineering NZ is taking so long to investigate Dr Alan Reay. Photo / RNZ
Alkaisi was critical of the time the process took saying there was “no justification for delaying justice”.
“We feel that our justice system failed us. This has to change, justice delayed is justice denied,” he said.
“I must acknowledge the valuable contribution made by my dear friend – the late Tim Elms – to this complaint and to all who helped the families in their struggle for justice over the past 13 years.
“This includes lawyers, engineers, journalists and many members of the public who supported us during difficult times.
“We appreciate your support and are very grateful. The CTV story will only end when justice is done and those responsible are held to account.”
Reay’s response to the decision
In a statement, Reay’s lawyers said they “strongly reject” the decision and would be challenging it.
“The decision is flawed and is the result of a deeply unfair disciplinary process,” said Kristy McDonald KC, who confirmed an appeal would be filed.
“We are acutely aware of the CTV families’ desire for finality following the tragic failure of the building in the 2011 Canterbury earthquake – and Dr Reay’s ongoing rejection of the [disciplinary] process is in no way intended to disrespect the victims or minimise their loss.
“Alan is entitled to be treated fairly and professionally; to date the process has denied him these fundamental rights.”
Chinese USAR members look at a book they dug up while assisting New Zealand USAR members as they slowly search through the rubble of the CTV Building. Photo / Dean Purcell
McDonald said the disciplinary hearing centred on workplace practices and employment procedures in the mid-1980s.
“The disciplinary process and the ensuing decision of the committee effectively seeks to condemn Alan for not complying with supervision practices that, contrary to what the committee found, simply were not in place 40 years ago,” she said.
“Over the last 40 years supervision requirements have improved significantly – but Alan cannot be blamed for not complying with standards of supervision which he maintains did not exist at the time.
McDonald said questions need to be asked about why the committee did not have “express supervision requirements in 1986 that applied to senior engineers such as David Harding”.
“Selectively assessing Alan actions in 1986 against standards that were subsequently updated is patently unfair,” she said.
“Alan strongly denies the allegations at the centre of the complaint. Counter to what has been widely reported, he believed – and had good reason to do so – that Harding was sufficiently competent and supported by access to relevant professional information and expertise to undertake this work.
“Harding was not a junior engineer as many have portrayed. He was a registered senior engineer with 13 years of post-graduation experience by 1986, including the design of multi-level buildings.
“The allegations at the centre of the complaint relate to a time when there were no relevant professional standards requiring supervision of a senior registered engineer such as David Harding.
“It was common practice for senior engineers to work independently and seek assistance when required – David Harding never sought such assistance or gave any indication of requiring it.”
The terrible scene following the collapse of the CTV building. Photo / Mark Mitchell
McDonald said since the complaint was made Reay had “co-operated, including seeking out documents dating back 40 years to the time of the CTV building’s design”.
“The delays have been stressful for the CTV families, and for Alan and his family,” she said.
“During this time he has repeatedly offered to make himself available to meet with the families, however, all such offers have been refused.
“While recognising that the desire for accountability for the CTV building tragedy is entirely understandable, Alan Reay believes he has been an easy target to blame.
“Continuing to pursue him in this matter is simply ‘a witch hunt’ and serves no public interest.
“None of this will restore the lives lost in the CTV building collapse but out of the tragedy have come significant learnings and change. Engineering standards were inadequate in the 1980s and those standards have been improved.”
