Clash over roof repairs
Deal between Downer and Nautilus apartment owners in trouble
Downer is in a dispute with owners of leaky apartments in Orewa’s Nautilus tower, now under repair after a $25.07 million court payout. At issue is the repair of the roof of the building, partly covered in a 12-level protective wrap as it is fixed.
Downer, which is listed on both sides of the Tasman, was initially involved in litigation over the apartments but successfully removed itself as a respondent in 2014.
Michael Sharp, Downer Group’s Sydney-based head of corporate affairs, on Monday outlined issues between the two parties, describing how a deal had been struck four years ago for Downer to fix the roof.
“Downer, the body corporate and owners reached a settlement in early 2013. As part of the settlement, Downer agreed to carry out specified repairs to the roof — in particular to rectify alleged membrane defects,” Sharp said.
“Downer remains willing to carry out the works as agreed and Downer has also offered to pay the cost of the works to the owners so that, if the owners prefer, their own contractors can carry out the works.”
But the deal had broken down over the terms of the work, he said.
“We are engaging with all parties to resolve this issue and hope agreement is reached soon.”
Lawyer Tim Rainey has represented Nautilus owners and said in 2015 when he won the case that the $25.07m was the highest leaky-building payout at the time.
Yesterday Rainey acknowledged the dispute over the scope of the repairs to the Nautilus tower.
“I am acutely concerned the matter is the subject of ongoing discussions.
“What happened was that when the case settled with Downer, it was agreed that Downer would carry out the repairs required to the roof.
“Certain things were excluded and the body corporate was going to do those things and Downer was going to apply for a building consent or get a waiver to do certain repairs.”
But there was a dispute between the body corporate’s experts and Downer’s experts over the scope of those repairs, which had been “sold” to the owners on the basis that Downer would get consent and code compliance at the end with the 30-year guarantee, Rainey indicated.
Downer had legal advice over the repair scope, which differed from what the body corporate’s experts said was required, Rainey indicated.
When he won the case, Rainey described it as a landmark victory.