Project manager faces $38,000 fine in first-of-its-kind building prosecution
A Canadian project manager could be fined $38,000 for his part in allowing serious faults in a large commercial building, in the first case of its kind in New Zealand.
Jason Buehler earlier admitted responsibility for reinforcing bars being cut when pre-cast panels did not fit in Queenstown's Kmart building in August 2018.
The Queenstown Lakes District Council was alerted to the issue by a whistle-blower and mitigation work was carried out, allowing the building to be safely completed.
Buehler's employer for the project, Dominion Constructors, has denied an identical charge and a trial date is yet to be set.
Buehler was to be sentenced by Judge John Strettell in the Queenstown District Court on Wednesday.
Defence counsel Tanya Surrey said he had returned to Canada and was working in the construction industry, but was likely to lose his job due to the economic fall out from the Covid-19 pandemic.
Buehler accepted he was responsible for the site as project manager, but did not direct the work, Surrey said.
"He didn't see it being done. He didn't even know that this had happened until the whistle-blower went to council."
The Queenstown Lakes District Council's counsel, Nathan Speir, said it was a "unique case" as it was the first commercial case to be considered under the Building Act.
The prosecution was brought because of the risk to public safety, he said.
"It's really a matter for good luck rather than good management that lives were not put at risk and the problem was identified by a whistle-blower.
"This really is about deterring building companies from cutting corners."
Judge Strettell said it was not known who cut the bars.
Remedial action was taken once the council became involved, which prevented serious defects and instability in the building.
It was evident the problem would have been known if an inspection had taken place, the judge said.
"There were warning bells prior to this issue that should have alerted management to be cautious, to have a heightened awareness.
"[Buehler] could not simply rely on people to do the right thing - he needed to ensure they did [either] directly through his oversight or indirectly through the procedures set out and known to all contractors and subcontractors."
The maximum penalty that could be imposed was a fine of $200,000.
The judge set a starting level of $60,000 and allowed a 25 per cent discount for Buehler's early guilty plea and another $7000 for his willingness to give evidence in the prosecution of the company.
However, he would not confirm the $38,000 fine until he received information on Buehler's ability to pay.
Judge Strettell allowed three weeks for an affidavit and submissions from Buehler's counsel.
Article Supplied by Debbie Jamieson