Statement From Alan Reay's Lawyers Re IPENZ Disciplinary Committee Decision

Lawyers for Alan Reay strongly reject the IPENZ (Engineering NZ) Disciplinary Committee Decision issued today. The Decision is flawed and is the result of a deeply unfair disciplinary process.

Kristy McDonald KC said that Alan Reay’s legal team will be challenging the Decision.

“We are acutely aware of the CTV families’ desire for finality following the tragic failure of the CTV building in the 2011 Canterbury earthquake – and Dr Reay’s ongoing rejection of the IPENZ 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 IPENZ process has denied him these fundamental rights.”

The IPENZ disciplinary hearing, which took place in late 2023 following a decade-long inquisitorial process, centred on workplace practices / employment procedures in the mid-1980’s, some 40 years ago. It sought to discipline Alan Reay for an alleged failure to adequately supervise the senior engineer, David Harding, who designed the CTV building in 1986 while working at Alan Reay Consulting Engineers.

Ms McDonald said the IPENZ disciplinary process and the ensuing decision of the Disciplinary Committee effectively seeks to condemn Alan Reay for not complying with supervision practices that, contrary to what the Committee found, simply were not in place 40 years ago.

“Over the last 40 years supervision requirements have improved significantly - but Alan Reay cannot be blamed for not complying with standards of supervision which Alan maintains did not exist at the time. That is fundamentally unfair. Questions need to be asked about why IPENZ did not have express supervision requirements in 1986 that applied to senior engineers such as David Harding.

“Selectively assessing Alan Reay’s actions in 1986 against standards that were subsequently updated is patently unfair,” said Ms McDonald.

Background

Dr Alan Reay strongly denies the allegations at the centre of the IPENZ disciplinary complaint. Counter to what has been widely reported, he believed – and had good reason to do so - that the senior engineer, Mr David Harding, was sufficiently competent and supported by access to relevant professional information and expertise to undertake this work.

David 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.

Over the many years that this process has drawn out Alan Reay has 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 Reay and his family. During this time he has repeatedly offered to make himself available to meet with the families, however all such offers have been refused by IPENZ (Engineering NZ).

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.

Alan Reay is now in his 80’s and long retired.

© Scoop Media