Alan Reay quits professional body
The boss of the company that designed the failed CTV building has quit the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (Ipenz).
Christchurch structural engineer Alan Reay had been challenging the right of his professional body to investigate complaints made against him following the Canterbury earthquakes royal commission.
The commission found the CTV building, which collapsed on February 22, 2011, killing 115 people, did not meet construction standards.
Ipenz confirmed in a letter to complainants that Reay had quit the body, but still remained a Chartered Professional Engineer and International Professional Engineer.
''This also means that Ipenz now needs to seek advice as to the options available for processing your complaint about [Reay's] professional conduct in 1986/87 or 1990/91 when he was a member of the institution and his company was responsible for the design of the CTV building,'' the letter said.
''This is because Ipenz has no jurisdiction to impose disciplinary penalties against an engineer who not a member of the institution.''
The Press last year obtained statements of claim and defence from the High Court in Christchurch which set out Reay's case to stop the investigations.
The two complaints challenged by Reay were a complaint by Tim Elms and others laid in 2012 which allege deficiencies with design work in 1986 and with remedial work done in 1991.
The complaint accused Reay and his employee David Harding of incompetence and said Reay acted unethically by failing to inform various parties of facts about the building between September 2010 and February 2011.
Another allegation in the complaint said Reay destroyed a CD disk containing design information about the CTV building.
The second complaint was by Mike Stannard, who alleged Reay failed to supervise Harding when he designed the CTV building and then exerted inappropriate pressure on the Christchurch City Council to approve the plans.
Reay disputed Ipenz's jurisdiction to conduct the investigations on the basis he could only be bound by rules in force at the time he renewed his membership.
Ipenz rules, which were changed over the years, could not be retrospective, he argued.
In the papers, Ipenz maintains Reay's contract of membership has an express or implied term he would be bound by the disciplinary consequences which were in force at the time of the alleged misconduct.