The Manukau District Court building is the subject of a dispute between the Crown and the construction company. Photo / Richard Robinson
The Manukau District Court building is the subject of a dispute between the Crown and the construction company. Photo / Richard Robinson
KEY POINTS:
Hawkins Construction and the Crown had a two-day settlement conference in the High Court at Auckland this week trying to resolve issues over leaks at the Manukau District Court building.
The Crown has claimed $2.5 million against the construction firm and others involved in the building.
It isclaiming for negligence and breach of contractual obligations, alleging the court building is not fit for its intended use.
Hawkins chief executive Chris Hunter said he was hoping for a resolution to the legal issues.
"Finally, all the parties are able to get around the table so I think we're hopeful positive things will come of it," he said.
The matter was heard by Associate Judge Hannah Sargisson and concerns leaks which developed in the building at 30 Wiri Station Rd after it was finished earlier this decade.
Hawkins is the first defendant and was the main contractor, winning the $16.5 million construction job to build the 10,000sq m three-level building, which has 11 courtrooms, five hearing rooms and a suite of 12 judges' chambers.
The Crown said water was reported to be leaking into the building in 2001 on a regular basis soon after completion, affecting courtrooms and a jury room.
By mid-2001, a substantial section of the north-facing roof garden was removed in an attempt to investigate the leaks into the first floor of the building. The garden was later re-instated.
At one stage, the building's fire alarms were de-activated, after water had dripped through a smoke detector, triggering the alarm system.
More leaks were reported in 2002. Defendants appearing before the court and staff complained about the smell from wet carpet and substantial leaks were noted in a diversions office on the first floor.
A year later, water came into a family court room, apparently from louvres in a plant room. Defects were also identified in the roofing membrane. Leaks were then reported in a first floor public corridor and the victim advisers' room.
The Crown claimed Hawkins had breached its contractual obligations because it had provided an overall weathertightness guarantee on the building.
