Jonathan Roper (Celotex) gives evidence about June 2013 meeting with Sotech about fire testing. Sotech was 'astonished' at how K15 was used based on 'unrepresentative' cement particle board test. Sotech told Roper that aluminium panels 'melt and allow fire into cavity', and that Kingspan had 'failed twice with standard cavity barriers'.
00:00:14 so
00:00:20 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:23 hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence
00:00:27 evidence from mr roper who was formerly employed by celetex but before we hear from mr referee i'd just like to welcome mr akbar who's joined us today in person we're very pleased to see him here
00:00:39 we're very pleased to see him here and to have him with us so would you ask mr rover to come back in please
00:00:59 mr rover to come back in please good morning mr rover
00:01:06 all right all ready to go yep thank you yes mr miller so chairman thank you very much and good morning to the entire panel
00:01:12 panel mr roper good morning good morning i'd like to turn please to some questions about sotek and ifc it's right isn't it that in june 2013 you might
00:01:22 you might made contact with sotech didn't you correct yes yes and can we please have cel 50602 page 3 up on the screen
00:01:41 page 3 up on the screen uh and uh you can see uh here uh that uh there's a reference at the foot of the page to the meeting uh that took place with between you and michael egenton of sotech earlier that month isn't there
00:01:54 of sotech earlier that month isn't there yes
00:01:55 yes uh do you remember the meeting um i do yes was it arranged or did you meet them at an event i met michael at a reba event where i
00:02:06 i met michael at a reba event where i was
00:02:07 was presenting on building information modelling
00:02:10 modelling right if we look at the top of page four and look at the paragraph at the top of the page in that email you say to him i tried putting a call through to you earlier but you were away from your desk so i
00:02:21 but you were away from your desk so i thought i'd follow up with an email regarding possible partnering opportunities for testing to br 135 as we spoke about last wednesday we are looking to be compliant in rain screen systems
00:02:31 systems for buildings above 18 meters in height and to do so we will need to carry out two large-scale fire tests in accordance with bs 8414 um
00:02:43 8414 um now is it right that originally you were considering testing to both parts one and two
00:02:49 and two yes um yes i believe so yeah but in the end it was that was subsequently abandoned in favor of a part two test only i think wasn't it correct uh now we know that a meeting did take
00:03:00 uh now we know that a meeting did take place with sotex on the 20th of june 2013. do you remember that meeting uh was that the meeting at their offices it is
00:03:08 it is can we look at cel40s 1863 please this is a note of that meeting and if we look
00:03:15 look at the first page we can see that it's called a br 135 meeting in durham
00:03:22 durham and present listed with you and then three individuals from satech john eglinton
00:03:28 eglinton michael edwin egginton who i think is john egerson's son is that right yes and graham todd who's the satech sales manager uk you see that uh and um can i just ask first is that a
00:03:40 uh and um can i just ask first is that a note
00:03:40 note that you made of that meeting i believe it is yes
00:03:43 it is yes as you were the only person present yes and
00:03:47 and in the note you can see that the purpose is to discuss partnering opportunity for testing to br 135 to understand previous experience and methods for testing to bs 8414
00:03:58 and methods for testing to bs 8414 using both rockwool and phenolic insulation behind the satech cladding system
00:04:03 system and then about halfway down the first page do you see it says under sotek and bs8414
00:04:10 bs8414 one stroke two uh it says successfully passed to both eight four one four one and eight four one four two both systems incorporated rockwool insulation and aim
00:04:21 insulation and aim fire barriers uh and then uh it goes on to say uh 15 minutes testing bre extinguished the chamber due to firing at the nine meter level using k-15
00:04:33 at the nine meter level using k-15 sotech reverted to rockwool and past aluminium railing system and cladding panels found to melt and allow fire to enter cavity outer face resistance to fire and tolerance of fire barriers proven to be crucial
00:04:47 and then uh well can i just ask you before we go on with that out of face resistant to fire and tolerance of fire barriers proven to be crucial was the outer face there a reference to the
00:04:58 reference to the rain screen material the cladding it was yes it was so you were told were you that the success of an 8414 test may depend on the cladding material used correct and specifically in relation to
00:05:09 correct and specifically in relation to cladding materials um you uh you say in the last um two lines there uh the aluminium railing system and cladding panels found
00:05:21 railing system and cladding panels found to melt and allow fire into cavity just pausing there you knew that aluminium therefore is this right was a particularly risky clouding material to use with k15 as the insulation as opposed to rockwool
00:05:33 as the insulation as opposed to rockwool um yeah sotek explained that um i'm just trying to think back to whether the aluminium refers to the
00:05:44 whether the aluminium refers to the panel or the railing system itself um it says aluminium railing system and cladding panels yes yeah so there were um conversations that took place that suggested that
00:05:55 that took place that suggested that the outer um face of the cladding was was crucial but equally the aluminium rails that hold the cladding panel was was equally crucial yes and is it right
00:06:06 was equally crucial yes and is it right therefore that you knew that aluminium as the material of choice for the cladding panels just focusing on that was a particularly risky choice of material to use with k-15 as the insulation as opposed to rockwool
00:06:19 as the insulation as opposed to rockwool well that was so tech's view yes it was so tech's view and you recorded that yes
00:06:24 that yes and then if you look under the next section k15 bba certification and literature you record astonished as to how k15 is used so
00:06:33 used so widely based on testing involving a cement particle board as the outer face to represent a typical cladding panel you see that and just on that
00:06:45 and just on that astonishment is what you record who's astonishment was it that you were recording there uh both parties i believe right i think it's probably the first time that i had indicated to sotek
00:06:57 i had indicated to sotek um the details of k15's bba certificate um
00:07:03 um so yeah astonishment from from both palm passes right i see uh in your witness statement if we can go back to that please at page
00:07:14 can go back to that please at page seven you say at paragraph 4.1.3 we just look at that please
00:07:22 and this is in relation to this meeting you describe the test there as unrepresentative you say you discussed how kingspan
00:07:35 you say you discussed how kingspan appeared to be selling its product for use in a variety of systems based on an unrepresentative test conducted some years ago
00:07:42 years ago was that actually said in the meeting do you recall oh yes yes and why was it unrepresentative uh because i think that we [Music]
00:07:53 [Music] jointly looked into their certification um and as i go on to explain there i think what we assumed or found was that there were cement particle boards
00:08:05 that there were cement particle boards which is a building board and not a decorative rain screen that was that was used yes so cement particle board not being widely used in the market made it an unrepresentative test correct in your view yes yes and in
00:08:17 correct in your view yes yes and in sotex view too correct right
00:08:24 now you also note uh the uh uh panel the fire barriers that were used there promo seal and was that because you understood that they had also contributed to the pass
00:08:37 they had also contributed to the pass i think we should we need to go back i think to the note of the meeting we were on
00:08:40 on one document back if we can [Applause] it's three lines down in the paragraph that we were looking at you say you identified caseband use promisil fire barriers fixed to a
00:08:52 promisil fire barriers fixed to a galvanized you see that in a galvanized steel sheet saute convinced that the system created using a standard cladding panel would fail as the post flashover that occurs would penetrate and melt the panel and allow flame to enter the
00:09:03 panel and allow flame to enter the cavity
00:09:06 in essence is it right really so tech we're telling you that kingspan had only passed
00:09:11 passed as a result of an unrepresentative test and that if kingspan k15 was used in a representative buildup in other words a commonly used rig
00:09:21 rig using a metal panel it would fail that's what they
00:09:24 what they that's what their view was yes yes
00:09:28 and then i think in the next section below that you go on to identify potential systems using celetex and there are four options there
00:09:39 there set out were those options uh those that you put forward or those that sotek put forward do you remember no they were ones that we were discussed at the meeting and mainly i
00:09:50 discussed at the meeting and mainly i was
00:09:50 was uh leaning on them as the manufacturer to to come up with options right
00:09:57 given the risk that satech had identified why did you think it was acceptable to go on to try to achieve br 135 classification uh in rel in
00:10:08 uh in rel in circumstances where systems using metal panels such as aluminium might will fail um because that was their experience with a particular product i mean the properties of phenolic and
00:10:20 i mean the properties of phenolic and pir
00:10:21 pir are different at that time i don't think anybody at celatex had carried out a large scale fire test and there wasn't any clarity as to how that product performed
00:10:32 as to how that product performed in relation to how phenolic performs in in that situation hence it wasn't disregarded altogether at that stage i follow now going back a paragraph in the note it goes on to say four lines up from the
00:10:44 it goes on to say four lines up from the end of the previous section k15 bba certification and literature it says cleverly designed and worded i.e non-combustible substrate wording used
00:10:55 non-combustible substrate wording used in literature could be interpreted as applicable for part one and part two cp board and masonry face outer face using cp board classified as six millimeter non-combustible cladding in product literature
00:11:07 in product literature uh was that a it by reference to the kingspan
00:11:10 kingspan bba certificate yes it was yes it was did you think that that was acceptable at the time um i thought it was cleverly worded what do you mean by cleverly worded
00:11:21 you mean by cleverly worded i thought that at the time there was
00:11:26 no clarity as to who the manufacturer of that cladding was that they tested with um or what the material actually was when you say clever do you mean potentially misleading but
00:11:37 do you mean potentially misleading but strictly accurate um yes yes now can we go to cel401865 please
00:11:50 this is an email from you looking at the second one uh to paul evans
00:12:01 uh to paul evans and he responds to that but looking at the second message dan it's not particularly clear that it's an email from you but it says 24th of june 1359 roper jonathan wrote find attached
00:12:12 roper jonathan wrote find attached contact report following meeting at sotech last thursday so you're sending the note we've just been looking at to paul evans are you on that date good and then he responds to you uh the same day fantastic note let's keep the
00:12:24 same day fantastic note let's keep the pace on this as discussed i'm far more comfortable having a recognized cladding panel and making the system work inside line inside in line with guidance provided by a fire expert than just copying the cement particle
00:12:36 than just copying the cement particle route
00:12:38 route you see that so um
00:12:42 had you discussed testing only using a cement particle board just like kingspan had done
00:12:48 had done um yes i think it was considered at the time right had you had a discussion with mr evans between the satech meeting that we saw and this and you sending him
00:12:59 that we saw and this and you sending him your note of the meeting about using cement particle board in a a bsa414 test yeah i think um the initial discussions that took place with paul um
00:13:13 discussions that took place with paul um when i was tasked with looking into above 18 metres the obvious place to look was at the direct competition and how they're tested
00:13:23 tested there was always the view that they would like to test a more realistic system
00:13:30 system if possible and not create a me too so to speak um but that was an option to revert back to what
00:13:41 what king spaniard had tested and we'll come to that choice or option later on when we look at some of the later material
00:13:52 of the later material sticking with this point in the year june 2013 where we see that mr evans says that he's far more comfortable having a recognized
00:14:03 far more comfortable having a recognized cladding panel and making the system work
00:14:05 work inside in line with guidance provided by a fire expert than just copying the cement particle route were you did you agree with that view at the time i did yes
00:14:17 view at the time i did yes and i think the the shared view amongst those individuals within celestex that were looking at the development was that that would create a competitive advantage
00:14:30 competitive advantage then i think in the next month you engaged the services of or tried to engage the services of ifc didn't you yes and you were seeking advice from them as to whether
00:14:41 them as to whether fr 5000 as it then was uh would pass the be at bsa414 test won't you correct yes now let's um let's just dive straight into the email on this this is ceo50673
00:14:58 the email on this this is ceo50673 and if we look at the email halfway down the page
00:15:02 the page this is from dr parina patel
00:15:07 1559 on the 4th of september to you and peter jackman and peter jackman was one of her colleagues that's right i think he's now deceased isn't he and um if if you uh
00:15:19 and um if if you uh look at the third paragraph in that email
00:15:23 email just before the foot of the page she says and in fact i think it's actually an email that comes from him perina and i have now had a chance to review the bs 476 part 6 and 7 test
00:15:34 review the bs 476 part 6 and 7 test evidence for your fr 5000 material which is far superior to the 4000 product information you forwarded earlier
00:15:41 earlier the 5000 material is definitely superior to the material i reviewed a few weeks ago not only in respect of its performance but also in its variability which is very low
00:15:49 very low we note that the specimens were tested under the nomenclature line one and line two are we to assume that these designations represent the two manufacturing lines that the product can be made on if so they show excellent comparability
00:16:01 and if you um
00:16:05 go over the page
00:16:10 uh he says in the first paragraph he's looking at the class naught indices and then the second paragraph says uh this is not directly confirmed by the
00:16:21 uh this is not directly confirmed by the bs 476 part 7 test where the maximum flame spread was reached early in the first one and a half minutes but i think it indicates that any heat released after the first 90 seconds did not manifest itself as flaming this must
00:16:32 not manifest itself as flaming this must be a good characteristic in respect to generating a satisfactory bs8414 test and then in the next paragraph he says after performing this analysis i believe
00:16:43 after performing this analysis i believe we can understand your confidence in respect of achieving a good result under the 8414 method we are of the opinion that the rates of flame spread and heat release indicated by the part six and seven results indeed form the basis for
00:16:55 results indeed form the basis for optimism
00:16:57 optimism what was the basis just i'm showing you quite a lot of that but what was the basis
00:17:00 basis did you think at the time for thinking that the results of the bs 476 part 6 and 7 tests could be relied upon or extrapolated to give a view about the potential success of a bs
00:17:12 view about the potential success of a bs 8414 system test um i didn't at the time um it was the only to my knowledge fire tests that celetex had carried out so i went to paul and asked
00:17:23 carried out so i went to paul and asked for
00:17:25 for the bs 476 details and sent those across primarily i believe they were as peter and perina have mentioned here they were looking at how
00:17:36 they were looking at how the fr 5000 compared to not only the phenolic phone but equally the 4000 range of products that solizex produced as well but did it not occur to you that the fact that uh the 5000 had done well with the
00:17:47 that uh the 5000 had done well with the with the class naught tests didn't indicate one way or the other whether it would
00:17:51 would pass a full system test under bsi 8414 to br 135 criteria um no i think um
00:18:02 as i said the only five tests that were available at the time were the bs 476 tests they said that they would review that
00:18:13 said that they would review that information hence hence why i sent that across
00:18:15 across and in the last paragraph last sentence of that email you can see that mr jackman says as a result if you go forward and book a test we can assist in generating a specimen designed to maximize the field of application
00:18:26 of application in the knowledge that we will be the first to know of any possible changes that could affect the design is it in fact the case that ifc assisted with the design um
00:18:37 they carried out this initial research and i believe they attended the first test um
00:18:45 test um and they started looking into fire barriers from memory as well so that yeah they did have some input right into the if we scroll up to the very top of page one we can see that you forwarded
00:18:56 page one we can see that you forwarded this email string on to paul evans on the 10th of september and in the second paragraph you uh say in the second sentence i'll get the ball railing again with the bre for a test date end of october early
00:19:07 for a test date end of october early november
00:19:08 november and endorse ifc to start designing the specimen alongside sotech did so did celetex want ifc to be involved in order to maximize the possibility of a pass
00:19:19 possibility of a pass yes yes and did ifc in fact ultimately take uh a role in the design of the test
00:19:30 take uh a role in the design of the test um in the first test yes in the first of february 2014 as it then turned out to be yes they did yes i'm also going to see how that evolves um now there's then a later meeting
00:19:40 meeting later in the year in october 2013 with both sotech iron and ifc i think do you remember that um no no i'll show you a note of that
00:19:51 um no no i'll show you a note of that in the in a moment do you remember that there was a whether there was a meeting in july 2013
00:20:01 no i don't um let's show you cel 50632 see if we can clear this up um this is an email this predates the
00:20:14 this is an email this predates the messages we've seen
00:20:17 this is an email from you to perina patel top of the page on the 15th of july 2013 perina as per our telephone conversation this is confirmation of our acceptance for peter to attend a half day meeting
00:20:29 for peter to attend a half day meeting commencing at 9 30 a.m on monday the 22nd of july do you know whether that meeting took place do you remember it um i believe it did yes do you remember what happened at that meeting or what was said at that meeting
00:20:41 was said at that meeting no i don't right um at any rate that we know there was a meeting on the 3rd of october
00:20:47 october can we go to cel 401195 please
00:20:53 and you refer to this meeting in fact paragraph 5.2 of your witness statement
00:21:01 you now say you don't remember it uh you remembered it when you did your statement but um you don't now is that is that the position um
00:21:16 the position um i can i can remember these these notes here yes
00:21:20 here yes right uh let's look at the note um now this i think was circulated by jamie hayes and he as you can see was one of the attendees
00:21:31 one of the attendees do you know who wrote this note uh even myself or jamie i would imagine right we could see who was present and the title of the of the meeting all the notice above 18 meters fire test ifc
00:21:42 the notice above 18 meters fire test ifc and satech meeting peter lee 3rd of october 2013 summary and we can see that those present were john eggington of sotech david cooper of isc you and jamie hayes from celetex each do
00:21:53 you and jamie hayes from celetex each do you think you write this note um i can't say for sure but it looks it looks like something that i would have produced yeah right and under fire test it says very
00:22:06 right and under fire test it says very problematic to pass kingspan failed twice with standard cavity barriers and in the second bullet point down it says john at sotech as john egenton skeptical about past with decorative
00:22:17 skeptical about past with decorative cladding what what was that what did that indicate i mean there's a
00:22:28 what did that indicate i mean there's a generic term um john was skeptical about richard board a kingsman or celetex
00:22:39 passing an 8414 test with any form of decorative cladding yes what did he mean by decorative cladding um i think that was the generic term in terms of metal high pressure laminate
00:22:51 terms of metal high pressure laminate fibre cement all decorative cladding i believe
00:22:55 believe i follow in contra distinction to cement particle board or fibre board yes i see
00:23:05 now you previously discussed the fact that kingspan had used a cement particle board to achieve a pass that you're meeting in june with soteg we saw that earlier
00:23:13 earlier was that discussed again at this meeting it looks like it was but yeah and if we look down at the third bullet point still no idea how
00:23:24 bullet point still no idea how kingspan support the use of decorative cladding
00:23:27 cladding as their fire test uses a non-combustible cladding who said that do you remember i think that was a a general view between most likely
00:23:38 a general view between most likely myself jamie and john eggington i see do you know how that general view arose who first made the point that they had no idea how kingspan could
00:23:52 that they had no idea how kingspan could support the use of decorative cladding given
00:23:55 given that their fire test had used non-combustible cladding in other words cement particle board i don't know who initially raised that no right
00:24:04 no right and then in the fifth bullet point down
00:24:08 the possible idea to design double cavity fire barrier and then the next bullet point it identifies it as a steel grill with an intumescent strip as well as a traditional mineral cavity barrier
00:24:21 traditional mineral cavity barrier do you remember who mooted that who suggested that as a setup uh well i think from speaking to john at sotech the distinct differences between the tests
00:24:32 distinct differences between the tests that he'd carried out previously were predominantly the insulation non-combustible and combustible but um from recollection i believe that he adjusted
00:24:43 adjusted the cavity barrier for the test involving
00:24:47 involving the non-combustible insulation so that then led onto a discussion around cavity barriers um and what were best suited to an 8414 test right why the quotation marks around
00:24:59 right why the quotation marks around double cavity barrier
00:25:02 i don't know honestly is it because a double cavity barrier was similarly unrepresentative of what the market would use in a in a commonly used cladding system i think it related to
00:25:14 i think it related to the reference in kingspan's bba certificate to the promo seal fire barrier it was it was not just the product reference it was a promising fire barrier and i can't
00:25:26 promising fire barrier and i can't remember the exact details but it almost suggested that there was a a double
00:25:31 double barrier used in that system right there's no reference here to prima seal as there had been in your satech note we saw earlier from the june meeting
00:25:41 meeting it's a possible idea to design double cavity barrier it looks from that as if this would be something that would be thought up from scratch
00:25:48 scratch and designed as an innovation uh no right i don't believe so no i think um would have referred back to kingsman's bba certificate i think from
00:25:59 kingsman's bba certificate i think from memory i looked into the promo seal five area that was described and it was no longer available was the potential for designing a double cavity barrier linked
00:26:11 designing a double cavity barrier linked to the discussion of kingspan having failed with a standard cavity barrier twice
00:26:16 twice um
00:26:20 yes more than likely yes did sotech or ifc for that matters say that kingspan had achieved their pass under bs8414 using a double barrier
00:26:31 under bs8414 using a double barrier double cavity barrier i think there was some confusion around the description that was contained in the bba certificate and i think all of the references suggested that there was
00:26:42 there was that either used a fire barrier that was no longer available or there was a some form of doubling up of a fire barrier
00:26:50 barrier i see and then looking at the previous uh
00:26:53 uh bullet point the fourth one down very unlikely to pass on the basis that celetex
00:26:58 celetex fr 5000 is slightly better than phenolic according to ifc testing is the reference there to ifc testing a reference to the class naught tests we saw in the earlier emails yes i believe so i see
00:27:09 believe so i see and when it was said very unlikely to pass was that ifc speaking or was that john eggington speaking or was there any uh from any any of either of you or mr hayes
00:27:19 hayes i think that was so tech speaking yes john that's john egenton yes right
00:27:26 so do we take from that he was telling you that even if as seemed to be the case celetex fr 5000 was slightly better than phenolic it still was very unlikely to pass in his opinion yes in his opinion
00:27:40 now can we move on then in time ceo50714 this is an email from you to david
00:27:51 this is an email from you to david cooper of ifc
00:27:55 the 31st of october 2013. and you say david following our conversation yesterday evening find attached the two a two products that i've come across in the market a luca bond a2
00:28:06 luca bond a2 and mali both are recognized names within the cladding industry and i think knowing what we know now this is the wiser option to pursue as discussed i think we should look to test one of the three following options
00:28:18 test one of the three following options and then you list them acm panel with an improved fire barrier system not overly confident that this is the right route to go down a2 panel with a standard fire barrier from list below
00:28:30 from list below and you can see the prima seal is in fact the fourth item on the list brackets common common buildup which we could stand behind if challenged three cement particle board as outer
00:28:41 three cement particle board as outer face per kingspan last resort and then in the last two sentences uh three lines up from the end of the message you say my personal preference which i will voice
00:28:52 which i will voice is that if we have enough confidence in the a2 panel with standard barrier system then we pursue this primarily if this fails the decision will need to be made whether we want to go down the kingspan route or pull out altogether
00:29:06 or pull out altogether now just to be clear you are saying go with option two if that fails we'll have to decide whether we go with option three
00:29:17 whether we go with option three which is cement particle board as out of face
00:29:20 face last resort or pull out altogether so those are the three options is that right that's right right now when you
00:29:28 when you say uh knowing what we know now uh as you do in the third line of the email what did you mean there what have you learned sorry where
00:29:40 what have you learned sorry where third line of the email in the top uh paragraph
00:29:43 paragraph first paragraph
00:29:50 you see you say in the second sentence in the first paragraph both the recognized names within the clinic industry
00:29:54 industry and i think knowing what we know now this is the wiser option to pursue i think it's probably reference the meeting
00:30:01 meeting at sotech and what was explored there i see
00:30:06 and in the first option acm panel with an improved fire barrier system was that a reference to the double cavity barrier system that we you
00:30:17 cavity barrier system that we you discussed at that third of october meeting
00:30:19 meeting yes i believe so yeah yeah and it looks as if you weren't particularly confident about that route hence you're saying so yeah from from what john had said yes
00:30:29 said yes yes and then if you look at the second option
00:30:33 option you you identify that as we've seen common
00:30:36 common common build up which we could stand behind if challenged when you say stand behind if challenged does that what would the challenge be based on that you were anticipating there
00:30:48 that you were anticipating there um i think to put this this email into into context the brief that i received was that they wanted to explore solitude to explore 8414 testing and
00:31:00 solitude to explore 8414 testing and ideally
00:31:01 ideally given what they assumed or or thought they knew about kingsman's testing they wanted
00:31:06 wanted a more representative system right does that explain why you um referred to the kingspan approach in the third option there
00:31:17 approach in the third option there cement particle board as outer face as per kingspan as a last resort yes because it wasn't representative of what was in the market that's what perception was yes yes i see
00:31:31 and why would you go down the kingspan route at all if it was the last resort um because i guess there was still a from my perspective a general view
00:31:42 from my perspective a general view within the business that uh they wanted to launch into this market regardless um and if that was the only way of passing the test
00:31:55 way of passing the test um and given that i've done some preliminary research relating to the properties five properties of phenolic foam and pir if that was the only option that's
00:32:07 if that was the only option that's that's what they'd that's what they'd look to
00:32:09 look to look to achieve right to see how these options then evolve further in a moment can i just
00:32:20 further in a moment can i just take you back a week or two in time earlier into october 2013 and go to cel four 40 308 please
00:32:31 now this is an email
00:32:36 if you look at a third of the way down the page
00:32:43 uh you can see this is an email from you to debbie berger
00:32:51 berger on the 18th of october copy to jamie hayes and you say hi debbie if you're still happy to carry out the mystery caller scenario on kingspan could the three of us get together early afternoon today see the brief below and a number of
00:33:03 see the brief below and a number of objectives that we would like to come out of the call with answers to if we're both off the phones this afternoon can i send an invite for say 2 p.m and i'll just show you what the the brief actually says if you go to page 2 of this email
00:33:15 says if you go to page 2 of this email run just to refresh your recollection this is the list of things to go through which you'd also sent to jamie hayes earlier that day and you were now
00:33:26 earlier that day and you were now sending to to debbie berger and the purpose was to gain further information on what recommendations do you see says in the first line what recommendations kingspan are giving in regards to the use of k15 in buildings
00:33:38 regards to the use of k15 in buildings above 18 meters project first project of this stale scale student accommodation stroke commercial metsec frame cement particle board
00:33:46 board envelope nv1 bracket systems with trespa meteon two millimeter panels rivet fixed is trespametion an an acm no a decorative cladding
00:33:58 decorative cladding it's decorative cladding yes i believe it's um a high pressure laminate yeah it's an hpl yes i see and you could set out what the objectives are there is k-15 applicable with all cladding
00:34:09 is k-15 applicable with all cladding systems etc um so that was the background to this and there are other questions as well there which are important um my question here though is did this mystery shopper uh exercise actually go
00:34:22 mystery shopper uh exercise actually go ahead
00:34:23 ahead i believe it did yes do you know who calls kingspan i think it was debbie i see and did she report back to you what answers she got um yes i believe she did
00:34:35 um yes i believe she did although i think the um venture was quite unsuccessful to be honest with you i think what was relayed back to me was that they weren't very forthcoming with any of that information
00:34:47 of that information right
00:34:50 now you then email paul evans on the 1st of november with a long email which i think summarized your research to date do you remember doing that i do yes yes and we can look at that
00:35:01 i do yes yes and we can look at that email cel 50716 and we'll just take this in stages because it's a long document
00:35:13 it doesn't go to anybody else in celetex and you start by saying well i think we have two possible solutions for testing in which both david at ifc and i
00:35:26 testing in which both david at ifc and i have confidence in we'll explain more on monday but essentially since the beginning of the project we have been looking at testing worst case scenario with an improved fire barrier to be then supported by an assessment report which broadens the scope of potential
00:35:38 which broadens the scope of potential systems that we are applicable for
00:35:42 now just pausing there as we we've seen earlier i think uh that the bre i've been putting you this way do you remember that earlier stephen howard of the bre had told you
00:35:53 stephen howard of the bre had told you um
00:35:53 um that a field of application report or an foar
00:35:57 foar was not something which applied to bs8414 tests um that's what we covered on thursday correct
00:36:05 correct yes yes yeah exactly we did and and you then go on to say after much research i don't think this is possible and i don't believe kingspan have a similar report we cannot seem to find or design a suitable barrier in
00:36:17 find or design a suitable barrier in which we have enough confidence that it can be used behind a standard acm panel which we know will melt and allow fire into the cavity speaking to simcoe on wednesday in birmingham with il
00:36:28 birmingham with il that's ian laffrey i think isn't it correct yeah uh he confirmed that architects will specify k-15 with a standard fire barrier
00:36:35 barrier and panel when when the work is contracted then subcontracted to cladding contractors such as simcoe aj marks stanmore etc they value engineer that system to be competitive at tender this means
00:36:47 to be competitive at tender this means changing fire barriers changing panels the only architect's only guarantee is that k15 will be used because there is no other alternative available now when you say
00:36:59 alternative available now when you say is in the penultimate line they're changing panels did you mean changing rain screen panels correct yes
00:37:07 and uh when you say uh
00:37:12 we know will melt and allow fire into the cavity i've just read you there in the third line how did you come by that knowledge was that through the meetings with sotech correct yes would you say that that was
00:37:25 correct yes would you say that that was common knowledge within celetex um yes i believe it i believe it probably was yeah right what's the basis for that belief because
00:37:37 belief because i fed back into the business what what i'd
00:37:40 i'd researched and
00:37:44 do you think it was common knowledge within the industry more generally the acm would melt yes i think probably um
00:37:56 i think probably um acm panels at the time were regarded um that's not as far resistant as others
00:38:07 just on acm i take it you understood at the time that it stood for aluminium composite material i did yes in other words not just pure aluminium
00:38:18 aluminium but something else in there too i didn't at the time understand the the differences between the cause i'd heard sotek talk about a2 and
00:38:28 and and other such cool materials but i guess i probably didn't really take into account or fully understand the differences between the cores that were being produced for acn
00:38:39 cores that were being produced for acn panels
00:38:40 panels was there any discussion at all between you and celetex or sorry you and so tech and unifc about the about the use of polyethylene calls
00:38:50 calls within acn panels not to my knowledge no
00:38:56 is it fair to say just looking at what you're telling paul evans here that rs 5000 should not be used with acm even as you understood it i think yeah
00:39:07 even as you understood it i think yeah what i'm saying here is that um we haven't got enough confidence in carrying out a bs8414 test with an acm panel based on what jonathan
00:39:18 with an acm panel based on what jonathan could
00:39:18 could right i told me that that's a more accurate answer to my less accurate question
00:39:23 question now you go on to say that there was no way of guaranteeing what cladding or fire barriers would be used because whatever was specified would be subject to value engineering given that observation were you not
00:39:34 given that observation were you not concerned that even if you knew that rs 5000 should not be used with acm it might come to be in any event as a result of
00:39:42 result of value engineering exercises i think that's what was happening generally yes yes
00:39:49 and i think in fact in the fourth paragraph as we see you go on to say after the rhetorical question what does all this mean for us
00:40:00 mean for us system approval limits us hugely as the market is so fragmented and it's extremely difficult to grasp who is being most commonly used the likes of mali
00:40:07 mali luca bond trespass expect a lot but value engineered out for standard aluminium panels trying to do the right thing
00:40:14 thing requires a complete re-education of the market and this would require a huge campaign and probably a lawsuit two options proposed below but now uh just pausing on the identification of
00:40:26 just pausing on the identification of the brands there uh you say they're value-engineered out for standard aluminium panels again standard aluminium panels does that mean acm i believe so yes now in the previous
00:40:39 i believe so yes now in the previous paragraph and i'm sorry to jump around this
00:40:41 this this is probably the logical way through it if you go to the third paragraph you say here
00:40:45 say here an architect will be told that k15 is applicable for above 18 meters in accordance with adb and that suffices from their perspective kingspan have done a great job at the
00:40:56 kingspan have done a great job at the spec
00:40:57 spec and according to simcoe are specified much more than rockwool duo slab for thermal performance as discussed above contractors opt for more cost-effective solutions and although they are liable for what goes into that building they do not know
00:41:09 into that building they do not know enough about the fire test to challenge the only figure who might possibly challenge a product's eligibility for use in buildings above 18 meters is the building control officer kingspan i would suggest do not have a piece of
00:41:21 i would suggest do not have a piece of paper that states they can specifically be used behind any cladding panel what they've done is got a bba certification stating the fire test method and taken that to labc
00:41:33 that to labc to get a registered document detail which states that k-15 can be used in a variety of cladding systems and complies with adb through passing br 135
00:41:42 135 a building control officer is unlikely to challenge a document that is approved from the head of building control now that that paragraph is it is reasonably clear but let's see
00:41:53 is it is reasonably clear but let's see let's see if i can just put what i understand you're saying here back to you kingspan is this right we're making very broad claims about the suitability for use above 18 meters of their product k15
00:42:05 above 18 meters of their product k15 underpinned by bba and labc certificates which give the impression that it can be used in a variety of systems uh yes i think that's right but i think
00:42:16 uh yes i think that's right but i think i'll expand on that and the the initial point about uh kingspan doing a good job or a great job as i refer to it at the spec end what was clear at this stage was
00:42:28 end what was clear at this stage was that
00:42:29 that the primary consideration for insulation on the external wall of the building was the thermal performance and i think very little consideration was given to the fire performance of those products
00:42:46 and i think you go on to say building control were very unlikely to challenge those claims was that because there was an labc certificate yeah i think from from what i'd say um kingsman had got both
00:42:58 um kingsman had got both a bba certificate and an labc certificate um and i guess i assumed that because they were being used in such a variety of
00:43:09 variety of cladding systems building control we're looking at those documents
00:43:19 did you understand that it was the labc who
00:43:23 who as you put it the head of building control is the words you use at the end of the
00:43:26 of the third paragraph there did i understand yes you say um a building control officer is unlikely to challenge a document that is approved from the head of building control
00:43:37 of building control was head of building control labc no i don't believe so what was what was the head of building control then that you meant there i believe i was probably referring to
00:43:49 i believe i was probably referring to um what is now known as the building control alliance i see the building control alliance don't approve things do they it's the
00:44:02 don't approve things do they it's the labc which is what you identified as and what mine don't have my understanding is that you have labc and nhbc and some numerous other private building control
00:44:15 numerous other private building control inspectors and they all feed into the building control alliance but i may have i see the short point though is that once you've got through the labc gateway then building control officers
00:44:26 officers up and down the country would not challenge what it said and would proceed to
00:44:29 to permit kingspan onto buildings that's what i assumed yeah yes or is it fair to say that you were explaining here that there was a lack of understanding in the market about the regulatory requirements
00:44:40 regulatory requirements for insulation above 18 meters i think there was a lack of understanding and there was
00:44:45 there was um consideration given to other areas when it came to the insulation and the cladding panel yes is that a delicate way of saying that in your view at the time
00:44:56 that in your view at the time as you were expressing it to paul evans you were exploiting sorry king spanner exploiting the lack of understanding in the market in order to get around the regulatory requirements i think they were driving demand based
00:45:07 i think they were driving demand based on thermal performance
00:45:12 and had managed to obtain a bba certificate and an labc registered document detail yes yes did you consider at the time
00:45:25 yes did you consider at the time that kingspan had
00:45:30 put it bluntly done something wrong in order to obtain the bba certificate and the labc document
00:45:37 document um no i think that the bba certificate is a certificate for the product as as a whole yeah not just specific to
00:45:49 as a whole yeah not just specific to the product in application um certainly not
00:45:52 not specific to the product in application above 18 metres
00:45:58 i think that they what this was clear evidence was uh that they had two documents that they could use
00:46:06 could use should they be challenged on whether they've passed a br or bs8414 test and when you said earlier on that they were driving demand based on thermal performance uh was the flip side of that
00:46:19 uh was the flip side of that was that they were doing so without inviting too much close attention on fire performance yes yes
00:46:31 was it your view at the time that you were trying to communicate to paul evans that kingspan had been perhaps economical with the truth
00:46:40 yes and you then go on to say and i've shown you this in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph that trying to do the right thing requires a complete
00:46:51 right thing requires a complete re-education of the market and this would require a huge campaign and possibly a lawsuit what did you mean there by doing the right thing well i think i explained on thursday the
00:47:02 well i think i explained on thursday the sort of
00:47:03 sort of divisive issue of system versus product
00:47:09 and the debate that was happening within the business at the time there were two schools of thought that one a bso414 test was a system um and then i guess
00:47:22 was a system um and then i guess a more commercial view that a competitor was selling in a variety of cladding systems based on one approval um i guess what i'm trying
00:47:33 one approval um i guess what i'm trying to say here is it was my view that it was a system test and
00:47:39 and to try and enforce that would suggest that what architects and contractors and subcontractors and building control had been doing for a number of years
00:47:50 had been doing for a number of years since 2006 was incorrect
00:47:55 yes so by doing the right thing you meant
00:48:00 meant system means yeah i meant advertise it as a system and only applicable to the components of that system
00:48:08 system yes and therefore not exploit the market's ignorance in a commercially more advantageous way correct
00:48:16 correct yes when you said it would take a huge campaign
00:48:21 campaign and probably a lawsuit to achieve re-education of the market why did you why did you think that
00:48:30 because the demand was already there for rigid board insulation and an external wall cladding kingsman had created that demand
00:48:44 specifiers and contractors and subcontractors were willingly uh willingly using that that product
00:48:51 product behind a variety of cladding systems so to go
00:48:54 to go completely against the grain and say hang on a minute you're you've been specifying you've been installing and using the product incorrectly and here are the reasons why um would need some some fairly
00:49:07 um would need some some fairly significant investment i would suggest and uh you refer to a lawsuit there probably a lawsuit who would bring that lawsuit did you think um kingsman for what
00:49:20 um kingsman for what for essentially saying that what we've said for the last however many years was technically incorrect
00:49:31 did you have any experience yourself or knowledge yourself of kingspan's uh
00:49:39 um character for bringing lawsuits of that nature no right
00:49:50 does this mean that at this point you had thought about but discounted the idea of
00:49:54 idea of outing as it were case kingspan k15 and what you discovered about how they had acquired the above 18 meter market for phenolic insulation
00:50:07 for phenolic insulation um i think it was an option as with all of my research that i put on the table for celestex to consider right
00:50:19 so outing there was an option but it wasn't yours to decide on is that how you
00:50:25 you and put it honestly i don't believe that they wanted to go down that route because of the investment that would be required
00:50:34 required on the huge campaign as i suggested and the risk of being sued by kingspan yeah you then go on to say
00:50:47 uh in the you well you then set out two options and let's just look at those first test a standard a2 limited combustible panel of which there
00:50:58 limited combustible panel of which there are a few a luca bond a2 malia turn it with a standard fire barrier system if challenged on what system to use we can happily state that our test used an a2 panel
00:51:07 a2 panel with a particular commonly used fire barrier still not 100 confident in passing as a2 is euro class classification derived from test data on reaction to fire testing two opt for the kingspan route and put a cement
00:51:18 the kingspan route and put a cement particle board as the cladding use a standard fire barrier good chance of passing them they have a cp board is good in terms of resistance to fire now just looking at there those two
00:51:30 now just looking at there those two options
00:51:31 options you don't rank them in seniority as you had done
00:51:35 had done with the email of the 31st of october we saw earlier why is that um because it wasn't for me to to do so my remit was to
00:51:46 remit was to research the market and feed that back in and
00:51:49 in and seek decisions from from my line manager and
00:51:53 and others within the senior team right and nor do you put forward the option which was option one in your previous email the 31st of october which was testing with an acm panel
00:52:05 was testing with an acm panel is that because you you had discounted that even before taking the option to paul evans i think i've um
00:52:11 i've um discounted that earlier in this email hadn't i uh well you yes we can see what you say about it but but does that essentially take us to
00:52:22 but but does that essentially take us to the reason why there are only two options in there yes right and then you go on to say however what we do need to consider is if we have two potential systems that could pass how do these dictate route to market what does an asm ctc state
00:52:35 what does an asm ctc state to somebody who inquires now just asm ctc is that is a reference i think to celetex people either in the technical department or the marketing team is that
00:52:46 the marketing team is that yeah so asm area sales manager and ctc celtics
00:52:50 celtics technical assistant center exactly state to somebody who inquires if we if we simply have the test report we don't want to have to provide this as evidence do we in fact need to spend 25 to 30 000 pounds for a bba to be able
00:53:02 25 to 30 000 pounds for a bba to be able to gain this document from labc which in my mind
00:53:05 my mind gives us very little chance of being challenged from building control do we partner with a few fire barrier manufacturers who have tested with k-15 currently to gain confidence in the market that way or do we take the view that our product realistically
00:53:17 that our product realistically shouldn't be used behind most planning panels because in the event of a fire it would burn you see that
00:53:26 yes uh now in that last sentence there are you really expressing your overall basic and honest assessment yes i believe i am
00:53:39 assessment yes i believe i am yes and the rest was really just trying to find a way to uh to get to the market with despite your
00:53:47 your honest and basic assessment there yeah i don't think this email is the only example of me putting options on the table for
00:53:58 of me putting options on the table for cellotex to consider and putting opting out of 18 meter market as a as a viable option
00:54:11 as a viable option you thought it was a verbal option did you
00:54:14 you i think it's one that should have been considered in reality did was it in your mind at the time that it was the only option consistent with honesty and plain
00:54:25 option consistent with honesty and plain dealing
00:54:26 dealing yes yes but nonetheless it wasn't an option that celetex pursued was it no and i think the response that i got from this email and the remarks that i got from
00:54:39 and the remarks that i got from other individuals within the business um quickly indicated to me that regardless of
00:54:45 of what the system was that was going to be tested
00:54:49 tested that message would be diluted as it was with kingsman
00:54:54 yes
00:54:57 in other words if you were going to play in this market you had to do so with cute wording yes
00:55:08 and therefore the route to market would as you knew at the time involved some kind of deception or disingenuous presentation and unless
00:55:19 a standard realistic representative system
00:55:23 system could have been tested i think their launch plan and literature would have made a much bigger deal of a realistic cladding system had that have been achieved
00:55:36 have been achieved and it had it couldn't be achieved could it it was demonstrated in the first test wasn't it
00:55:40 wasn't it that it couldn't be achieved no
00:55:44 now paul evans comes back to you ceo50718
00:55:51 and he says
00:55:55 great summary and shows the real merit of good research and talking to the market we are trying not to create a me too here
00:56:02 too here but if we do it will be for the right reasons just the reference there not trying to create a me too here mean you were not aiming to replicate k15 correct what does that mean
00:56:14 k15 correct what does that mean um that was a phrase that paul regularly used i think um if you look historically at celetex's product development it followed kingspan kingsman led the
00:56:26 it followed kingspan kingsman led the way solitex developed products into a similar market um
00:56:31 um the view was that they weren't creating me too's but the reality of it is that they they were and he goes on to say if we
00:56:39 say if we do it will be for the right reasons what would be the right reasons did you understand uh commercial i would suggest oh i see so not reasons to do with
00:56:51 oh i see so not reasons to do with compliance with the regulations or dive safety or anything like that uh no i believe at this stage and even before my involvement with the
00:57:02 even before my involvement with the above 18 meter market i think the business or generally had decided that was the route that they were going to go down and they would go down it regardless of of
00:57:15 they would go down it regardless of of how
00:57:16 how um how the product could pass
00:57:20 uh and then he asks you in the second paragraph to put the whole 18 meter story into some slides and spend 15 minutes at the start bringing everyone up to speed on your work to date also have the flip chart
00:57:32 work to date also have the flip chart there in case you need to draw anything up
00:57:33 up we can then discuss how to go forward and then he goes on to say for me for every amount of confidence we lose in the other system passing needs to be offset with the same amount or more competitive advantage that doing
00:57:44 or more competitive advantage that doing it
00:57:45 it this way delivers uh now just unpacking that a bit the 15 minutes at the start was that a reference to the 4th of november meeting that had by then been scheduled
00:57:57 been scheduled um i believe so yes right we'll come to that in a moment um you say in your statement that you didn't actually attend that meeting but you were specifically asked to attend
00:58:09 you were specifically asked to attend and present some slides and i think you went on to create some yes yes and in that last uh paragraph that i've just read to you where he says for every amount of confidence etc
00:58:21 confidence etc did you understand that paul evans meant that any decision not to follow the kingspan model which had a higher chance of passing needed to be justified by the commercial advantage
00:58:31 advantage or offset if you like by the commercial advantage of testing a more representative system yes yes and that mr evans himself was doubtful about the case for testing a more representative system
00:58:43 more representative system yes yes now moving on in a little bit in time ceo 403.00
00:58:53 this is you sending the meeting invitation for the 4th of november
00:59:02 cel40 [Music]
00:59:16 and you i think are listed there as one of the attendees as you can see yes along with craig chambers
00:59:25 chambers rob warren paul evans jamie hayes in the in the boardroom craig chambers was ceo at the time wasn't he yes he was here and rob warren was head
00:59:36 yes he was here and rob warren was head of technical correct jamie hayes why was he invited uh because he was part of the um project team and just he's coming to give evidence later this week but just tell me what precisely was
00:59:48 week but just tell me what precisely was his
00:59:49 his role in this at this stage um he was assisting from a technical perspective regarding regulations and
01:00:00 regarding regulations and yeah i mean most product development teams consisted of a variety of different disciplines within the within the business right um can we go to cel three zeroes
01:00:12 right um can we go to cel three zeroes one one one nine nine please
01:00:18 and that's the first page above 18 meter update
01:00:21 update uh were these the slides that you prepared i believe they were you and if we just look at the first slide on page 2
01:00:31 on page 2 we can see a proof document b with if we can have it blown up a paragraph 12.5 i cut and pasted there with yellow highlight external walls should
01:00:44 yellow highlight external walls should either meet the guidance given in paragraph 12.6 to 12.9 or meet the performance criteria given in the bre report
01:00:51 report br 135 for cladding systems using full-scale test data from bs8414 part two part one or part two
01:00:58 two now um can we proceed on the basis that at least from this time nobody within celetex at least had seen these slides was under any illusion about what the regulation meant correct well i say regulation about what
01:01:10 correct well i say regulation about what the guidance meant in adb yes right um now can we go straight through this to slide 14 please on page 14.
01:01:21 uh seletech's options and we can see that you set out there five options worst case scenario with field of application report system route limit scope requires
01:01:32 system route limit scope requires re-education it's test and launch without a bba and labc test and launch with at bba and nabc opt out of above 18 meters
01:01:42 meters now these are the alternative routes that you thought celetex could follow and the first is worst case scenario with field of application report what did you mean there by worst case scenario
01:01:55 scenario um
01:01:58 i don't know whether that was reference to
01:02:01 to the least fire resistant cladding or the most fire resistant cladding looking at that
01:02:14 right so you can't help me with what you meant then no no and the second option is well sorry i should ask you were these in order of your preferences
01:02:26 these in order of your preferences no why were they in the order they were in
01:02:29 in um probably because that's how they came into my head when i was creating the slides
01:02:34 slides right and the second option down there is system route limit scope requires re-education what did you mean when you said that this would require re-education uh the same point that i made earlier
01:02:45 uh the same point that i made earlier from the from the email were you concerned that uh testing to the system route would lead to confusion in the absence of re-education um
01:02:58 yes i think it would have been very difficult to launch a product with a
01:03:06 message around the system without re-educating right what what did you have in mind by telling people or in telling people about the system
01:03:17 or in telling people about the system route by way of their re-education um i don't know what i had specifically in mind but all i knew would have would have it would be a major re-education and a as i've said a
01:03:29 major re-education and a as i've said a big investment right with the point of the re-education be
01:03:33 be in simple terms it's a system test celetex rs 5000 can only be used in exactly the same system because that is what the guidance says
01:03:44 what the guidance says yes right and then uh it goes on test and launch without bba a labc
01:03:52 labc presumably that was riskier than testing and launching with one um yes i think there was some um hesitancy as there was with all certification within the business to
01:04:04 certification within the business to disclose any of that information so without a bba and a labc certificate the onus would be on the manufacturer to disclose a test report to the
01:04:18 disclose a test report to the to the market which they were hesitant to do
01:04:21 to do oh i see so when you say with and without it's not that you don't have one it's
01:04:25 it's about disclosure i believe so yeah right then if we turn to the next slide slide 15 page 15 we can see
01:04:32 can see your assessment i think uh of uh the prospects of successfully achieving classification to br 135 with each option and you put in the acm
01:04:43 with each option and you put in the acm panel with improved barrier system less than 50 percent a a2 panel with standard barrier 80 cement particle with standard barrier 90 percent
01:04:53 percent it seems that your view even then was that there was a less than 50 percent chance
01:04:57 chance that a bs 8414 test pass would be possible
01:05:01 possible with an acm panel with an improved barrier system correct yes so was that basically discounted from then on um yes at this meeting yes at this
01:05:12 um yes at this meeting yes at this meeting right uh in contrast to that if you look at the third bullet it says a cement particle with standard barrier that's what kingspan had done wasn't it
01:05:23 that's what kingspan had done wasn't it yes
01:05:23 yes and that would give you a 90 chance of success yes yeah but the a2 panel with standard barrier only 80 percent so what you called your last resort doing a kingspan
01:05:34 doing a kingspan would still give you a better chance of passing the 8414 than your preferred choice i think which is the a2 panel with the standard barrier yes is that correct that's correct yeah now
01:05:45 is that correct that's correct yeah now uh at paragraph 5.14 of your statement if we just go to that please it's on page 10 you uh say there i was aware that rob and
01:05:59 uh say there i was aware that rob and paul expressed their views at this meeting
01:06:01 meeting these were not entirely aligned you say i was aware were you not at that meeting
01:06:10 meeting i was yes you were so you were aware that they expressed their views at this meeting
01:06:16 meeting because you heard them express their views presumably is that right yes right now you go on to explain how the the lineup worked
01:06:27 explain how the the lineup worked uh and you uh say uh
01:06:34 prior to this meeting i was already aware that rob was clear in his views that bsa414 was a system test and that the test report relating to a successful test was only applicable to that particular system
01:06:45 system i was aware of this as i had an inf that should be informal chat with him craig chambers and paul were aware that kingspan was selling successfully on the basis of one bsa414 test
01:06:55 test as to which it provided only limited information to the market and the kingsmen did not seem to be being asked for further details of their test craig chambers and paul's view was that adopting rob's interpretation
01:07:06 that adopting rob's interpretation would limit sales and would not be a reflection of the market dynamics i was told by paul that craig chambers had said at the meeting on 4th of november
01:07:14 november and you say which i did not attend that there was no point in worrying about a test and its impact on sales until celetex had passed it successfully now i think it's not right is it that you didn't attend that meeting i think
01:07:25 you didn't attend that meeting i think you did didn't you i believe i did yes yes so that needs to be corrected in your statement and when you say i was told by craig paul that craig chambers had said you then record that is it in fact something that you heard craig chambers
01:07:37 something that you heard craig chambers say himself it was yes and that was um primarily the point of the meeting i knew that there was
01:07:48 knew that there was contrasting views within the business between rob and paul craig was obviously the managing director and that is uh something that stuck with me really yeah now you we can
01:08:01 stuck with me really yeah now you we can see you say in paragraph 5.14 that you didn't attend that meeting you also say the same thing in paragraph 5.13 if we go back a page please you say uh in the second line though
01:08:13 you say uh in the second line though that you didn't attend that meeting i think you now accept that you did can you just explain why you've changed your evidence about that um there's just recollection i think yeah i haven't been shown the
01:08:24 yeah i haven't been shown the diary invite yes right
01:08:28 did you present the slides at that meeting um i don't know whether i'd presented the slides or or without well i definitely produce the slides um
01:08:41 i'm not sure whether i presented them right
01:08:44 right can we get back to paragraph 5.14 and you say there that paul evans and craig chambers you say felt that
01:08:58 rob warren's interpretation would limit sales and not be a reflection of market dynamics
01:09:04 dynamics what did you understand them to mean by not a reflection of market dynamics um not a reflection of how the market was
01:09:15 was operating currently so where evan mr evans and mr chambers therefore in favor of one of the other approaches they were concerned that a system route
01:09:29 would go against what was already in place in terms of market dynamics right it's a slightly oblique answer
01:09:40 right it's a slightly oblique answer is the position actually straightforwardly simply this that um rob warren basically said you look you need to do a system test because that's what 8414 says and you can't market it as anything wider than
01:09:52 can't market it as anything wider than the system but craig chambers and paul evans said that that was basically on commercial and would limit their sales yes yes so this wasn't a a genuine debate about the meaning
01:10:05 a genuine debate about the meaning of approved document b or the meaning of br 135
01:10:10 br 135 or the build up of 8414. this was just about
01:10:13 about compl about whether or not you complied on the one hand or whether or not you bent the rules to make more money on the other yes yes now
01:10:25 yes yes now the option eventually selected by celetex was to test with an a2 board and then obtain a labc approval i think wasn't it
01:10:33 wasn't it yes do you accept that that was a similar approach to the one adopted by kingspan
01:10:38 kingspan it was simply yes yeah yeah because if we look at the final slide of this presentation please on page 16. i'm sorry to get back to it this is uh at cel 30119
01:10:49 this is uh at cel 30119 there it is considerations proof of compliance to br 135 and then second bullet point literature wording ctc and asm response
01:11:04 literature wording there what did you mean by that i think there was a conversation that took place um throughout all of this initial
01:11:16 um throughout all of this initial research
01:11:18 research regarding one can we viably pass a bs8414 test and two how the business would then
01:11:30 and two how the business would then take that forward and market that product and there was so much debate regarding those two and obviously differing views that that's what sort of prompted craig to say
01:11:41 prompted craig to say we're worrying about how we take a product
01:11:45 product forward that we haven't even got approval for right thank you [Applause]
01:11:56 [Applause] just unpacking that a little bit more does that mean that there was discussion at this meeting about how to word the product literature in order to be able to give the impression of a much broader suitability
01:12:08 impression of a much broader suitability for use of rs 5000 than as had been tested i think there was um a general conversation about how
01:12:19 um a general conversation about how how much of the testing information the business disclosed
01:12:28 and about how the literature was to be worded
01:12:31 worded yes so presentation presentation um tagline yeah everything really adverts this is a
01:12:42 everything really adverts this is a decision then about how to word the literature in order to present things in a particular way and also not reveal other things yes i'm saying that but what's your recollection
01:12:53 recollection that's yeah that's as i said there was a lot of consideration given to
01:13:00 to the eventual outcomes of a test and the details of those tests and how that could then be taken forward
01:13:08 forward yes
01:13:13 mr chairman we've come to a new topic and it's now 11 15. i won't finish the new topic in five minutes it might be convenient would that be a better
01:13:24 would that be a better point for you it's it's it's a conv it's convenient let's have a break
01:13:31 mr river um taking our break this morning slightly earlier than usual because
01:13:35 because council has reached a convenient point okay so we'll stop now we'll come back at half past 11 please
01:13:41 please and as i told you last week please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it while you're out of the room that's fine all right thank you very much you'd like to give the usher please
01:14:00 to give the usher please thank you half past 11 please
01:29:52 yes would you ask mr rover to come back in please
01:30:09 all right mr roofer yes i'm ready to carry on yeah hi thank you yes mr miller thank you mr chairman uh mr roper can we just go back a little bit in time but forward in topic
01:30:18 topic to designing the test and at paragraph 5.7 of your statement if we can just have that up there on page 8 of your statement you say on the morning of the 30th of october 2013
01:30:30 morning of the 30th of october 2013 so that's about five days or so before the
01:30:33 the fourth of november meeting i was introduced by ian laffrey and asm at celetex to graham smith of simcoe he was keen to work with celotex and offered to help with the construction of the test rig
01:30:45 the test rig now let's just look on at cel40s sorry two zero nine zero four zero is two
01:30:52 two zero nine zero please and i'd like to get in that to page three
01:31:00 this is an email earlier in the month uh from ian lashbury and if you look uh at
01:31:11 uh at the i think you need the bottom probably of page
01:31:16 of page two for this uh it's an email of the 10th of october from ian lathbury to graham smith at simcoe and relates to a meeting they'd had and
01:31:27 and relates to a meeting they'd had and if you go over to page three you can see that there's some bold text and in the uh bold
01:31:38 and in the uh bold first build paragraph uh you can see that he says note that k15
01:31:44 k15 certificate also states that the product can be used in types of wall cladding including rain screen curtain walling which are outside the scope of this certificate you see that um and then halfway down
01:31:55 you see that um and then halfway down the next paragraph five lines down he says we know from k15's bba
01:32:00 k15's bba and literature that they have only tested to bs eight four one four one which is on to masonry but by wording their literature acutely the perception is that they can be used on an sfs frame structures above 18 meters
01:32:13 an sfs frame structures above 18 meters the sheathing board must be a sound in terms of fire protection as a masonry wall which we which we know a calcium silicate board is however most would opt for a cement particle board which are cheaper and more commonly used but classified as
01:32:25 and more commonly used but classified as limited combustibility not non-combustible our system will be determined by what sheathing board is used in our fire test of which the details are still to be finalized hope this helps john and then underneath
01:32:37 hope this helps john and then underneath that you can see ian laffer's name now just clear this up for me if you wouldn't mind please who actually sent that email was it you or ian lathbury or was it ian lafferi cutting and pasting something you'd send him
01:32:49 him um you're referencing the bold text yeah that focus on that yes and i presume i sense it looking at that right i see and um when you say there uh
01:33:02 and um when you say there uh in that third paragraph uh by wording their literature acutely was that your impression or are you quoting from what someone had said to you
01:33:13 someone had said to you um i think that was the general view of those that were involved with the above 18 meter project and by the word cutely did you mean that kingspan were wording their literature
01:33:24 kingspan were wording their literature to give the impression false impression that k-15 could be used more widely than they had tested i think that what was clear is that only carried out
01:33:35 what was clear is that only carried out a test to part one um but from memory even some of the diagrams and images that were used in their
01:33:44 their data sheet and even in their vba certificate suggested or demonstrated the product's use onto an sfs
01:33:52 an sfs frame as opposed to a masonry substrate which we know part one is right so that's a yes to my question but on the basis that they'd only passed
01:34:04 but on the basis that they'd only passed part one but were giving the impression cutely that they could it could be used in a part two application yes yes now returning back to your direct contract with with top contact with simcoe i think you then sent
01:34:15 simcoe i think you then sent an email uh following your introductory meeting early that day 30th of october uh ceo 50711 please and i'd like to get a page three in that
01:34:33 uh and uh the email starts on page two just to show you where it begins and what what what its context is it's a it's a follow-up email from you after a meeting with him and you had
01:34:45 after a meeting with him and you had some further queries which had sprung to your mind on the way back from the meeting
01:34:50 meeting and uh if you look at um the foot of page one we can see um uh his his uh answers those are questions and his answers come the next day
01:35:03 answers come the next day if you go to the foot of page one you can see what he says
01:35:10 uh and he just says jonathan response is below
01:35:13 below now if we go back to the net the the page three um
01:35:22 you can see that there's question one sorry page two question one do architects generally specify the material brand of cladding to be used on each project or is this again driven by main
01:35:31 main stroke subcontractors now his answer i'm afraid it's in the same color but is nearly always specified but every year more common that facade panel is revised for ve purposes so just thinking back to your first of
01:35:44 so just thinking back to your first of november email is that where you got the point you made in your first email first of november email about value engineering from yes yes and then
01:35:55 yes yes and then ditto question number two we talked about having to obviously submit paperwork relating to above 18 meter testing to building control if you use k15 on a job do you have to submit paperwork
01:36:06 paperwork or is it the responsibility of somebody else and what paper work is generally submitted for insulation bba test reports etc question mark and then if you go to page three we can see
01:36:16 can see his answer typically yes we have to issue bba certificates or fire testing at warrington strait chilton fire or similar
01:36:22 similar even if insulation is specified most large cladding projects are undertaken by a facade contractor who takes responsibility for the design therefore critical factor contractor has approval
01:36:31 approval for whatever he proposes and again was that the basis for your essentially giving that advice and passing that on to paul evans in your first november email yes yes
01:36:44 november email yes yes and then your third question you say i'll have a conversation with the bre tomorrow and my peers in here on how quickly we can move this project on if you're willing to help install the system do you have a design team in-house if we sent you through our
01:36:55 in-house if we sent you through our requirements i.e fire barriers cement boards cladding panel and the test structure details answer we do but they are extremely busy getting ready for the number of jobs starting on site december this is the worst possible time for us
01:37:06 this is the worst possible time for us internally as busy designing and planning for these works but have possible labour available can't promise anything as i do not want to let you down like sotech if you have details or sketches what is required i can review and ask if one of my
01:37:18 can review and ask if one of my designers can do extra over time to what they're doing now
01:37:23 and that is how it was left just after that then to what extent were simcoe actually involved in the design of the test having offered their services in that
01:37:34 having offered their services in that way
01:37:36 way um i believe they produced drawings for test one
01:37:43 and then they subsequently provided labor to
01:37:47 labor to install the rig on both occasions yeah and just um scrolling on then to january 2014 um
01:38:00 ceo50795
01:38:05 this is an email from you to grant smith at simcoe
01:38:12 where you thank him for the confidentiality agreement
01:38:18 and if we look down the email chain and i'm not sure we need to we can see that um simcoe had sent back a confidentiality agreement which celatex had demanded
01:38:29 had demanded and asked for proof that our fr 5000 was of limited combustibility it seems to have been for another client but looking at the first page we can see your
01:38:37 your response of the 22nd of january which was to provide the data sheet confirming class naught fire performance as you can see in the third paragraph
01:38:49 as you can see in the third paragraph why did you give mr smith the data about class naught given that he was after proof of limited combustibility um i don't know is the honest answer i
01:39:01 um i don't know is the honest answer i think
01:39:05 generally that's that's what was what was issued [Music]
01:39:10 [Music] with with the data sheet right
01:39:15 looking at note you say building control may ask for proof of passing br 135 testing which will happen over the next two weeks
01:39:23 two weeks but views on what actually constitutes limited combustibility differs dependent on who you talk to we believe we need to demonstrate compliance to approve document b by passing br 135 the fire test
01:39:34 fire test others may simply want proof that it's class naught but we would not advise simcoe installing our product until we've passed br135 now were you telling him that some of your clients celetex's clients
01:39:45 of your clients celetex's clients thought that class naught as a classification meant limited combustibility yeah i think there was a perception at the time that within a certain few that
01:39:57 a certain few that classo meant limited combustibility was that something you yourself had come across
01:40:04 across in your time at celetex or something that you had been told by others within celetex
01:40:09 celetex yeah something i've been told and i think i raised the issue with uh rob and he referenced the diagram and approved document b which i think we saw
01:40:20 which i think we saw on thursday which i think relates to the external cladding rather than the role in the installation but i think that's where the misinterpretation came from
01:40:35 right
01:40:39 wasn't the point here that the reason celetex needed classification to be r135 was precisely because uh fr5000 as it then was was not a material of limited combustibility
01:40:51 material of limited combustibility uh yes correct and the fact that it might be class naught was not relevant no i mean yes it wasn't relevant it wasn't relevant no uh
01:41:03 relevant no uh did you have any concerns at the time about simcoe's apparently limited understanding of the concept of limiting combustibility um no i didn't
01:41:16 um no i didn't you didn't that didn't lead you to have any concerns about accepting any design recommendations from them either is that right that's correct right now in your statement at paragraph 5.23
01:41:29 now in your statement at paragraph 5.23 this is a page 11. if we can just have that up please you refer to an email of the 8th of november
01:41:39 november to simcoe
01:41:42 and you say there simcoe previously advised that celotex needed panels with good levels of fire resistance and mali eternity panels were very similar to cement particle boards and had good fire performance
01:41:55 had good fire performance now cement particle board is what king spanner tested isn't it uh yes yes and you've already you've already explained in your view kingspan's testing was unrepresentative of what was used in the
01:42:06 unrepresentative of what was used in the market that's right correct yeah and yet despite this celetex was opting to test a panel which they consider to be very similar to the king's band panel similar in nature in
01:42:16 nature in in material marley turner is fibre cement
01:42:20 cement so it's a cement based product but it's not a building board it's a decorative cladding panel i see so when you say similar to cement particle boards
01:42:31 particle boards similar in what sense um the formulation of the
01:42:35 of the product right it's a cement-based board was malia turn it similarly unrepresentative in the way that um kingspan cement particleboard had been no
01:42:45 been no it was more representative you thought right why did you
01:42:52 decide to use a mali a turnip panel as opposed to an aluko bond panel or any of the others that you've been considering uh because i think that um
01:43:04 uh because i think that um as i've said previously there wasn't enough confidence in an acm panel following the discussions with simcoe um they suggested that malia turn it was similar
01:43:14 similar in nature to some imparticle boards albeit
01:43:18 albeit a decorative facade um and marley were a relatively well-established brand i believe the sales director at celetex um
01:43:32 sales director at celetex um had previously worked with the sales director of malia turner and and so the link was
01:43:37 link was the link was there right marley eternity natura you say was a decorative facade yes but but it was nonetheless a
01:43:50 but but it was nonetheless a cementitious fiberboard i think wasn't it
01:43:52 it yes yeah correct right did the fact that it was a decorative facade and i'll give you pause for thought looking back at the satech meeting that you'd had in the june and the october of 2013
01:44:03 2013 when john eggington had expressed his views about decorative panels yeah i think um i fed the feedback from simcoe's meeting back into
01:44:15 feedback from simcoe's meeting back into the business and there was clearly a risk
01:44:18 risk associated with the malia turn at decorative facades based on what john eglinton had said previously um
01:44:26 um but equally there was a drive to try and test a more representative system was there any aspect of the natura panel which was metallic no right
01:44:37 panel which was metallic no right so the decorative nature of it wasn't uh the same is this right as the metal panels which you'd be discussing with sotech correct now we know that the first test was
01:44:48 now we know that the first test was carried out in february 2014 and i just want to look at that with you um you say that you were in attendance at that test with rob warren is that right yes was jamie hayes also there
01:44:59 hayes also there um i didn't state that in my statement but i've seen evidence that um suggested he was yes indeed he does uh but what was your recollection what is your recollection mr hayes was
01:45:10 what is your recollection mr hayes was there um
01:45:14 looking back at it now yes i believe he he was there with some members of ifc
01:45:20 with representatives from iac's ifc do you remember who that was i don't off the top of my head all right it's right isn't it that the test was extinguished after 26 minutes correct and you say in your
01:45:32 minutes correct and you say in your statement at paragraph 5.27 at page 12 and identity is indeed well it's there now um you say in the third line there was an obvious failure as the flames reached the top of the test rig before the specified time
01:45:45 before the specified time was it your view at the time that the failure was obvious um yes
01:45:52 um yes was phil clark of the bre present throughout the test he was yes do you recall talking to him before the test uh yes do you remember what was said
01:46:03 uh yes do you remember what was said um i think we were just trying to ascertain what constitutes a past and a fail there was a big clock in front of the test rig if it got to 30 minutes and it hadn't
01:46:14 if it got to 30 minutes and it hadn't been extinguished then there was a good chance that the rig had passed equally if the flames were protruding the top of the rig
01:46:23 the rig that was a clear sign that it was a failure
01:46:26 failure now in paragraph 528 and 529 you record discussions with phil clark and in the second line of power 528 you say
01:46:37 say phil told me he shared rob's view that the insulation had performed relatively well
01:46:41 well but the cladding panel had cracked and that once fire had entered the cavity there was not much that could be done and then in paragraph 529 you say following the end of the test rob ian cooper phil and i had a discussion
01:46:54 ian cooper phil and i had a discussion whilst at the bre testing center in cooper was ifc wasn't he yes i think he was yeah phil said he'd seen worse fails and suggested that celetex might want to strengthen the outside of the test rig
01:47:05 strengthen the outside of the test rig in order to counteract the cracking of the mali
01:47:07 the mali eternity panels i'll come back to that in a moment
01:47:14 where you recall him saying that he phil clark shared the view that the insulation had performed relatively well but once fire had entered the cavity there was not much could be done
01:47:27 was it he who suggested that celetex might want to consider strengthening the outside of the rig yeah i think we sort of looked to phil because that's what he did on a
01:47:39 because that's what he did on a day-to-day basis really he carried out eight four one four tests so um rob and i could see that as i've described there once the
01:47:50 described there once the fire managed to get through the eight mil panel and into the cavity that's when it really started to um
01:47:59 uh yeah take shape and and and end up flaming at the the top of the rig so we were we were interested to get phil's views um and please you know bear
01:48:11 phil's views um and please you know bear in mind at this at this stage this is the first large-scale fire test that celetex had ever
01:48:16 ever undertaken so all of the previous claims around
01:48:20 around pil manuf uh pir boards just charring and not contributing to flame spread etc etc um it seemed to confirm those those initial views it
01:48:31 confirm those those initial views it looks as if it was you who suggested that malia turn it panels were available in 12 millimeters in addition to the eight millimeters used in the test yes that could have
01:48:42 used in the test yes that could have come from you and you say that phil responded that he thought that thickening the panels to 12 millimeters might suffice
01:48:49 suffice yes
01:48:52 so that was his response you you then go on to say
01:48:56 on to say uh phil also joked that celetex could use a six millimeter cement particle board like kingspan but i knew that this was not what the business wanted did he actually mention kingspan by name
01:49:07 did he actually mention kingspan by name do you recall he did yeah he did did he explain to you exactly how kingspan had used the six millimeter cement particle board uh not um in detail no he just
01:49:18 uh not um in detail no he just referenced the six mil cement particle border
01:49:22 border as he outside cladding right
01:49:26 and that was a reference as you understood it to the cement particle board kingspan had used in its historic 8414 test yes why did you think that phil clark was
01:49:37 why did you think that phil clark was joking
01:49:39 joking um because
01:49:43 i think that
01:49:47 he understood my concerns relating to using a decorative facade i had conversations when i was at the bre
01:49:57 bre um that
01:50:01 um that reference that exact line how we could just use a six mil cement particle board like kingsman couldn't we to which he confirmed that that was the case
01:50:10 case um so
01:50:14 um so i don't know why he joked after the after the first test um because it was clear at that stage that that wasn't the route that we were that we were going to go down when you say he
01:50:25 say he joked that celetex could use a six millimeter cement particle just trying to understand why you thought what he was saying was a joke was it because
01:50:36 joke was it because actually you all knew that the six use of the six millimeter cement particle board that king span had used was a joke unrealistic yes unrealistic
01:50:49 well i don't want to coin a phrase perhaps but a cheat um manipulating uh the test details yeah yeah it's
01:51:00 uh the test details yeah yeah it's okay i expressed those views too phil
01:51:04 okay you weren't in any doubt they were you that phil clark well you went in any doubt way about phil clark's attitude to the reliability of the kingspan test
01:51:18 to the reliability of the kingspan test using cement particle board no no now you then go on to say in paragraph
01:51:25 paragraph 5.31 of your statement if we go over the page um you say following our internal discussions i sought some advice from ifc and the bre i spoke to phil about thickening the
01:51:37 bre i spoke to phil about thickening the cladding panel to 12 millimeters
01:51:44 and then you go on to say i believe we also spoke about the option of strengthening the fire barrier level with a two-panel solution because it appeared from the february test that the cladding panel had cracked and fallen away which
01:51:55 had cracked and fallen away which enabled the fire to jump around the fire barrier at level two i do not think that phil suggested anything specific in this regard now when you
01:52:06 say that you spoke to him about the option and option of strengthening the fire barrier level with a two-panel solution
01:52:14 solution what was his response do you remember um i don't know i recall the conversation in the context of the conversation but i don't recall his
01:52:25 conversation but i don't recall his response
01:52:29 right the two panel solution came from you did it the two-panel solution um referred to again uh initial references
01:52:40 referred to again uh initial references of
01:52:41 of of um a fire barrier that kingsman had used
01:52:46 used previously that was no longer available
01:52:50 you say in paragraph 531 that this conversation with phil clark followed our internal discussions was this separate was this later than the test day 14th of february
01:53:02 the test day 14th of february 2014 um
01:53:06 2014 um i don't know i'm not sure when did you have the conversation with phil clark to which you are referring here at paragraph 5.31
01:53:15 i'm not sure the specific date do you know who was party to it apart from you and phil clark i don't know does jamie hayes privy to that conversation
01:53:26 conversation i don't believe he was no what about paul evans paul never came to the tesseract right do you think this conversation was at a meeting or on the phone or or uh
01:53:38 or uh i'd be guessing so i don't i don't know right
01:53:45 [Applause] now
01:53:50 i'll come back to um this point in the moment but can i just go to
01:53:57 go to jamie hayes statement this is cel3010154
01:54:06 and i'd just like to look at paragraph 54 with you
01:54:13 he says and this is this is a reference to the test day itself and he says myself jrp and rw that's you paul evans and rob
01:54:25 that's you paul evans and rob warren did not understand at the time that flames out of the top of the structure would constitute a test failure
01:54:31 failure i drove back to the office with jr and rw we discussed the fact that we felt as though the fact that the test had been stopped before the 30-minute mark suggested the rig had not passed but if the rig could pass the thermocouple data it might just pass
01:54:43 thermocouple data it might just pass everyone seemed really excited about this prospect do you remember that conversation uh i do yes
01:54:51 do yes is he right in his recollection about what happened in it yes i believe he is and at paragraph 55 he goes on to say jr phoned telephoned pe from the car as he wanted
01:55:02 telephoned pe from the car as he wanted to find out how the first test had gone he seemed extremely keen to find out from the bre as soon as possible what the outcome of of the first test was there was a lot of emotion from jr and pe related to the
01:55:13 emotion from jr and pe related to the first test result i felt that this was linked to the pressure from saint-gobain regarding the budget
01:55:18 budget and following further discussions in the car regarding the further 25 000 pounds that would be required for another test it was apparent to me that a second test the second test would be likely should the first test results show a
01:55:29 should the first test results show a failure
01:55:30 failure uh do you agree uh with him as he says there
01:55:34 there that um there was first of all you telephoned paul evans from the car that's correct and that's because paul evans wanted to know as soon as possible what the result was do you remember what you told paul evans um i told him
01:55:45 um i told him that exactly what i saw that the test was terminated after 26 minutes what did paul evans say to you
01:55:52 you um probably does that constitute a pass or a or a file you don't get a definitive answer from the bre there and then but having spoken to phil
01:56:05 there and then but having spoken to phil prior to the test taking place um i expected that result to come back as a failure
01:56:13 failure he goes on to say there was a lot of emotion from jr and pe related to the first test result is he right about that i'm not sure what he's
01:56:22 he's referring to in terms of emotion um i i i relayed the information back to paula's as i saw it really um
01:56:34 and what about his view that whatever it is what you said was linked to pressure from saint-gobain regarding the budget discussion about that um i think there was
01:56:45 was discussions around budgets and i wasn't sure i mean these are um expensive tests in the nature as you can see 25 000 all there are thereabouts um
01:57:00 i wasn't sure whether suffix or sangaban would commit to an additional test given the level of expenditure that had been right um just go back to
01:57:12 right um just go back to uh paragraph 5.29 in your statement please your statement to page 12.
01:57:26 uh you say towards the foot of the page there i do not recall any mention of any further possible modifications to the rig during this discussion and that's at the end of the test at the time i thought this might be the end of
01:57:37 time i thought this might be the end of the above 80 meter project as we had exhausted our budget and it had only ever been envisaged that we would conduct one test
01:57:48 but you also say if you go back two paragraphs same page
01:57:54 at the end of the at the end of paragraph 5.27 uh you say i do not recall being particularly surprised by this failure as it was celetex's first attempt at the
01:58:05 as it was celetex's first attempt at the test
01:58:06 test and i'd just like to try to see if you can reconcile those two statements
01:58:12 given that you weren't surprised by the failure are you saying that you never expected celetex to pass that test right that was an overly optimistic no given that you weren't surprised that it
01:58:23 given that you weren't surprised that it had failed the test does this does it mean that given that you would only conduct one test you felt that this test was the one and only chance
01:58:35 and only chance yes right
01:58:43 can we go to cel 50842
01:58:51 this is an email from you on the 17th of february 2014 so three days after the failed test on the 14th
01:59:00 the 14th to ifc perina patel and david cooper
01:59:05 and you say in the second main paragraph i've spoken to phil this morning and he sees no reason why a classification report cannot be issued as it is in his opinion that extending
01:59:16 as it is in his opinion that extending the test to the full duration of 30 minutes rather than stopping at 25 minutes
01:59:20 minutes would have made little difference and as shown attached we meet the performance criteria of br 135 in not exceeding 600 degrees within the first 15 minutes depending on how phil's peers at the bre received this it may be useful if we
01:59:31 received this it may be useful if we could set aside a date in the diary in which you could dial in to discuss your view from the test and given what you said in your statement that it was an obvious fail and you weren't surprised that the first
01:59:42 and you weren't surprised that the first test had failed um was were you surprised by what you record by what mr clark said to you as you record here were you surprised by what he'd said
01:59:53 surprised by what he'd said um yes i mean i'm looking at that now and that's that's the first time i've seen that email in six years and it surprises me as i read it now yes
02:00:05 it surprises me as i read it now yes yeah do you do i take it from that you don't remember this conversation no do you remember a conversation in which you were in which you were surprised that phil clark had suggested that
02:00:17 that phil clark had suggested that you might pass
02:00:21 um no i i'm right no now we know that there was a decision made to retest following the failure of the test in february do you know when that decision was made
02:00:34 do you know when that decision was made um i think there was a discussion internally um myself jamie paul rob i don't know whether craig was involved in that discussion um but
02:00:48 discussion um but what we've seen had been fed back in really that the the insulation in our view had performed okay
02:00:56 and that the eight mill panel had
02:01:01 prevented flames entering the cavity for a certain period of time and and really that there were there were two suggestions in that meeting that then led to
02:01:14 in that meeting that then led to a second test being carried out do you know when that discussion took place i don't know the specific don't know do you know who was the ultimate decision maker about whether or not
02:01:25 decision maker about whether or not a second test should take place and it would have been either paul or robin most slightly paul because of the budget what was the basis on which that decision was taken do you know i think because the um
02:01:37 do you know i think because the um first test was viewed as a a narrow fail really
02:01:41 really what gave you confidence well did you have confidence that celetex would be able to pass on the second attempt um it wasn't as bad as i thought it was
02:01:52 um it wasn't as bad as i thought it was going to be the first test and phil's comments
02:02:00 made me i guess a little bit more confident that there was a chance of passing an a414 test those are the comments we've seen already in your statement about thickening the um malia turnip panels to 12
02:02:11 the um malia turnip panels to 12 millimeters exactly yes there was there was two suggestions that came out of that meeting um rob suggested that we could take the route of moving away from the eight mil miley a turn it and
02:02:23 from the eight mil miley a turn it and using the 12 mil miley attorney which we knew was available um the second suggestion was from jamie to
02:02:31 to um incorporate um an additional layer at fire barrier level right you say rob suggested you could move away from eight mil and use 12 mil is that right the actual suggestion came
02:02:42 is that right the actual suggestion came from rob warren not you that's right yes i i see what research was done into the prospects of passing before the second test was booked
02:02:54 um i don't think there was much more research done other than
02:03:03 taking on board the comments following the first test right given that you had expected the budget for testing to be used up was it not surprising to you that it was possible to re-test so soon
02:03:16 that it was possible to re-test so soon on the basis merely of the thickening of the external panels um yeah probably was surprising actually yeah right in reflection do you know how securing
02:03:27 in reflection do you know how securing the funding for the second test was gone about i think paul or uh myself spoke to joe so from memory the
02:03:36 the test fees came out of the development budget rather than the marketing budget i see and joe is joe mahoney is it jeremy correct yes what was his role uh he was research and development manager at the time
02:03:48 development manager at the time did he have the purse strings he did over the development budget over the development budget and then not going back to sango baton is that right correct
02:03:55 correct i see and how did you persuade joe mahoney that a second test was worth it um i don't think i did persuade him i think um
02:04:05 think um i think he was just asked whether he had an additional 25 000 pounds left in his budget
02:04:13 budget and he did and he did yeah and he agreed to spend it on the second test correct did you not ask for any any data or any forecast in order to justify releasing those funds no that wasn't
02:04:25 releasing those funds no that wasn't unusual i mean a lot of the um spend
02:04:31 um spend from the marketing department actually came out of the development budget generally yeah do that as it may to your knowledge did joanna mahoney not say to you well in order for me to
02:04:42 say to you well in order for me to release another 25 000 pounds i'm going to need some some sort of concrete basis on which i can think it's reasonable to do so i don't believe you did no really okay
02:04:53 now i want to ask you some questions about the second test if you go back to your statement please at page 12.
02:05:02 we look at paragraph 5.24 please uh and i think i probably need the bottom of page 11 first
02:05:13 bottom of page 11 first to give you the context uh you say there that um your preference for the panels to be eight millimeters in thickness because our team thought this was more
02:05:24 our team thought this was more representative of what was used in the market however if only 12 millimeters was available then that would be fine paul rob warren and jamie hayes were aware of this choice of board and the decision as to thickness
02:05:37 so it is the reason why eight millimeters was used in the first test that it was more representative of what was used in the market i think
02:05:48 of what was used in the market i think they were
02:05:49 they were um cautious about using a cladding panel that came across as too thick
02:05:56 thick basically yes i think eight mil was deemed to be more representative yes but in the second test using 12 millimeters uh
02:06:07 using 12 millimeters uh that might undermine that and make it impractical or less practical for the test system to be representative of what was being used in the market
02:06:19 of what was being used in the market correct if that was the route that the business were going to go down right and if we go to page 13 of your statement and look at paragraph 5.32
02:06:30 statement and look at paragraph 5.32 we can see here i said i'd come back to this
02:06:34 this paul rob jamie hayes and i just subsequently discussed two options one increase the thickness of the panel to 12 millimeters or increase the panel thickness and use a double panel system on the fire barrier
02:06:45 barrier using a magnesium oxide board we decided on option two because we thought that such a system stood the best chance of passing the test
02:06:55 who was it who came up with the idea of using a double panel system on the fire barrier using a magnesium oxide board
02:07:03 board i believe it was jamie hayes jimmy hayes uh do you remember when he suggested
02:07:14 uh do you remember when he suggested that
02:07:16 that um at that meeting i believe we might be able to date it can we look at cel
02:07:23 50881 please
02:07:29 here is a an appointment message in the outlook
02:07:32 outlook system for a meeting on the 31st of march 2014 required jamie hayes
02:07:43 is that the meeting at which you would have you discussed the use of a six millimeter magnesium oxide board um
02:07:54 magnesium oxide board um the only thing that concerns me there is that rob and paul were not invited no true
02:08:03 does that trigger a recollection about when that meeting might have happened or was it not that meeting i don't believe it was that meeting that they were present now apart from uh paul evans
02:08:14 now apart from uh paul evans rob warren and jamie hayes who else was aware within celetex of the suggestion that the second test should involve the six millimeter magnesium oxide board um
02:08:28 just us four i believe right did you consider at that time whenever that was that it was just first discussed that it would reflect a typical build-up of a cladding system
02:08:39 typical build-up of a cladding system generally used in the market no i think the um general view amongst those that knew that that was the route that they were going to go down
02:08:50 down knew it was unreflected right
02:08:56 now you say that it was just you rob warren
02:09:00 warren and jamie hayes what about craig chambers was he also aware of this discussion about six millimeters um i don't know if i'm honest with you well the reason i ask you is if you go to paragraph 5.32 of your statement uh
02:09:14 5.32 of your statement uh you say halfway down craig chambers may also have been present at that discussion although i cannot now clearly recall
02:09:23 looking back on it now the material i am now bringing to life i hope in front of you do you have a better recollection of whether craig chambers was
02:09:30 was privy to the conversation about the use of the six millimeter magnesium oxide board
02:09:34 board i don't know right
02:09:38 were you aware that magnesium oxide was non-combustible uh i was yes was there anybody present at the discussion you've identified at paragraph 5.32
02:09:49 paragraph 5.32 who disagreed with the approach of using a double panel system using a magnesium oxide board
02:09:58 no and at the end of that paragraph uh you say in any event paul said he would need to discuss this in greater detail at the board meeting paul also said that a discussion with
02:10:10 paul also said that a discussion with joe mahoney would be required to secure the budget for a further test do you know whether given the answers you've given me earlier about the discussions with jay mahoney whether he was told that a six
02:10:22 whether he was told that a six millimeter magnesium oxide board be inserted into the test to improve the chances of passing as a means of securing the budget from him i don't know i i don't think from
02:10:34 i don't know i i don't think from uh my recollection of my time at celetex that joe would have put up any resistance to providing money out of his budget to the marketing department right
02:10:47 was it your understanding that the board approved the design of the test as well as the decision to retest sorry can you rephrase it yes looking at paragraph 5.32 where you're
02:10:59 paragraph 5.32 where you're recording the fact that paul evans told you that he would need to discuss this in greater detail at the board meeting is it your recollection that paul ever that paul evans was going to tell the board
02:11:10 to tell the board about the design of the test including the six millimeters and not only the fact that they needed to make a decision to retest yes yes
02:11:21 to retest yes yes was there any discussion at this time about whether the proposed presence of six millimeters of magnesium oxide would be disclosed in the test reports um i think that during the discussion
02:11:34 um i think that during the discussion that took place between myself paul robin and jamie um that the concern
02:11:45 um that the concern from paul's side primarily was that it wasn't representative and and that was one of the key drivers um in what he saw
02:11:58 drivers um in what he saw that could have been used as a competitive advantage had the product passed so
02:12:03 passed so there were some reservations from from his side
02:12:06 his side um but as i said before i quickly understood that
02:12:14 any references to the system would be would be diluted and i could foresee the business going down the kingspan river at that stage yeah
02:12:32 had there been any concerns as a result of the
02:12:35 of the february test about the cavity barriers that had been used
02:12:41 um
02:12:45 i think what became apparent is that the fire barriers that were installed on the first test only worked by
02:12:57 test only worked by being activated by heat or smoke or fire and expanding upon the inside face of cladding panel um and i think there was some concern
02:13:09 um and i think there was some concern around
02:13:10 around the ability for that inchemescent on the end of the fire barrier to expand and close the close the cavity so there were some reservations around there did you discuss
02:13:23 fire barrier designs alongside the use of six millimeter magnesium oxide um yes i believe we did yeah so was the use of magnesium oxide a way of overcoming
02:13:35 of magnesium oxide a way of overcoming the problem with the cavity barriers not expanding fully yeah i think what i learned at the time [Music]
02:13:41 [Music] i still believe now is that the performance of those fire barriers are entirely dependent on the fire resistance of the cladding panel that they expand onto do you remember having a meeting with a
02:13:54 do you remember having a meeting with a cavity fire barrier manufacturer yes you do who was that uh side rise side rise
02:14:01 side rise did you go to the meeting with siderise yes
02:14:04 yes do you remember what you discussed i think um
02:14:08 think um i believe jamie was present there as well um
02:14:12 well um i think we discussed our concerns with chris of siderise was that chris moore chris maltz yes yes um
02:14:20 um about the ability for their product to firstly
02:14:24 firstly expand sufficiently to close the cavity and then to work if the cladding panel wasn't there in the first place did you have any discussion with chris mort
02:14:35 have any discussion with chris mort about the proposed use of six millimeters magnesium oxide um i don't know if i'm honest with you i don't know can we then turn to the test um
02:14:47 can we then turn to the test um in may 2014 second of may 2014 and at page 13 of your statement uh on the same page we're on at the moment you go on to say
02:14:58 go on to say um i do not record participating in any discussion about changing or reducing the ventilation gaps in the system from the first
02:15:04 the first to the second test the thickness of the insulation was the same and the same brackets were going to be used the only changes between the first test and the second test that i was aware of was the thickening of the malia turnip panel from eight millimeters to 12
02:15:15 panel from eight millimeters to 12 millimeters and the use of a six millimeter magnesium oxide board at the fire barrier
02:15:21 barrier at level two and at the top of the test rig
02:15:24 rig were you also not aware of the fact that um at
02:15:27 um at those points level two in the top of the test rig
02:15:30 test rig uh an a an eight millimeter uh malia turnip panel would be used was a way yes
02:15:37 way yes you were so in fact there were three changes not just two is this right thickening of the malia turnip panel from eight to twelve use of the six millimeter magnesium oxide board
02:15:48 magnesium oxide board where you've said and also in the same positions the use of eight millimeter molly to turn it correct yeah so we could correct that paragraph can be in your statement yes yes is there any reason why you omitted
02:16:01 yes is there any reason why you omitted that
02:16:02 that reference to the eight millimeters at those points uh no no there isn't um now do you know can you remember when those changes were
02:16:15 can you remember when those changes were actually agreed
02:16:20 no i don't recall the specific date but um yeah i would imagine that the meeting that took place previously with paul and rob
02:16:32 with paul and rob most likely led to that decision right
02:16:39 and what about craig chambers from your the best of your recollection was he involved in making that ultimate decision to make those changes um he would have things
02:16:50 um he would have things um i don't know whether paul disclosed what the changes were between the first and the second test to craig very well can we then look at uh
02:17:03 cel401109 please this is the bre final test report of the 1st of august 2014
02:17:15 1st of august 2014 this is the test report as opposed to the classification report just to make that clear to you and we can see on the second page if we just
02:17:24 just pick up page two that it's signed by phil clark and authorized by tony baker
02:17:31 baker see that yes now can we look at page 13 in that document
02:17:40 this is figure three the system prior to testing
02:17:45 testing uh we can see that there are some areas of cladding which are white the bottom three panels and then a an area of clouding which is
02:17:56 and then a an area of clouding which is orange
02:17:57 orange two areas in fact which are orange one at level what in fact was level two and one at the very top of the rig are those orange panels the eight millimeter malia turn it natura panels
02:18:08 millimeter malia turn it natura panels correct yeah and the rest are the white 12 meter
02:18:12 12 meter panels are they yes and does that mean that with the magnesium oxide behind well sorry i should ask you and was the magnesium oxide panel the six millimeter magnesium oxide panel
02:18:24 the six millimeter magnesium oxide panel sitting just behind the orange panels we see on that picture and so eight plus six is 14 as opposed to 12 does that mean that the orange panels protruded very slightly from
02:18:35 panels protruded very slightly from flush
02:18:36 flush with the 12 millimeter marley turn it panels by two millimeters yes yeah can we just see that on the left hand side then in the return wall yes you can i mean the reflection on the
02:18:48 yes you can i mean the reflection on the image isn't very good but um yeah yes you could see the magnesium oxide protruding there yes
02:18:58 now we'll come back to this report in due course can i go to please to as um sorry to cel 50
02:19:06 50 892 please ceo50892
02:19:16 this is an email from uh you uh to matt taylor at f g f limited and it's dated the second of april 2014
02:19:29 and it's dated the second of april 2014 and it it responds to his email to you of the same day at the bottom of that page
02:19:34 page and he's telling you there that he can do uh eight millimeter panels and 12 millimeter panels and it follows on from
02:19:46 millimeter panels and it follows on from a discussion i do think i need to show you
02:19:48 you um perhaps we should just look at it actually if you look at page two the point is i think you originally asked the six millimeter panels didn't you
02:19:56 you yes yes and we don't need to go to that um but you were told in a nutshell by mr taylor that it wasn't available at that depth so you've settled for eight right that's the message from these emails isn't it i
02:20:07 the message from these emails isn't it i think yes
02:20:10 and was the decision to use a thinner layer to make it less noticeable that there was something else behind it yes it was to try and make it a consistent 12 mil yeah so as to conceal the presence of
02:20:21 yeah so as to conceal the presence of the six millimeter magnesium oxide board to anybody looking either at the rig or at a photograph of the rig in a later report it was to prevent any stepping out of the of the rig
02:20:33 any stepping out of the of the rig yeah and therefore to see off any prospect of anybody asking questions about why there was a step out as you put it
02:20:39 put it correct either looking at the rig itself or any later photograph yes yes
02:20:46 did that not strike you at the time as dishonest
02:20:49 dishonest yes it did yeah but you went along with it um
02:20:53 it um i went along with a lot of um actions at sodatex that looking back on
02:21:04 at sodatex that looking back on reflection were completely unethical and
02:21:11 one that uh that i probably didn't potentially consider the impact of at the time
02:21:18 the time i was as we've said i was 22 23 first job i thought this was standard practice all but it did sit very uncomfortably with me
02:21:35 yes thank you and and the reason for using magnesium oxide here at the far barriers at level two is that one of the criteria for classification to br 135 is that the
02:21:46 classification to br 135 is that the temperature at the level of two thermocouples should not or must not exceed 600 centigrade yes yeah that's right yes so by including combustible material here you celetex increa
02:21:58 you celetex increa increased its chances of satisfying that requirement correct and and it does the same apply to
02:22:05 to the use of magnesium oxide at the top of the rig
02:22:08 the rig that flames over topping the rig would lead to failure yeah i think the two um two biggest criteria is with the with the level two firmer couples and the as seen on the
02:22:19 firmer couples and the as seen on the first test flames protruding the top of the rig yeah mr millet you may have inadvertently given the wrong impression um you asked the witness whether by
02:22:31 um you asked the witness whether by including combustible material celtics increased its chances is that what you meant no and i'm grateful i meant non-combustible well all right
02:22:42 non-combustible well all right non-christmas i'll ask the question again well i just think the transcript is it's a very important point and i think the transcript order of reflect yes i accurately both question that yes no indeed i'm grateful mr chairman let
02:22:53 no indeed i'm grateful mr chairman let me ask the question again i think you've said i think you understood my question but i'll put it again for the transcript is it right that you understood that by including non-combustible material here you or celetex increased
02:23:05 material here you or celetex increased its chances of satisfying the requirement in in br135 that the temperature at the level two thermocouples does not exceed 600 centigrade correct yes and similarly
02:23:18 correct yes and similarly the reason to include a magnesium oxide strip at the top would be to avoid flames over topping the wrist over topping the rig which would lead to failure as the sec as the first test had done yeah it was
02:23:29 as the first test had done yeah it was to um
02:23:30 to um to have something that the fire barrier could expand to that would that would stay in situ and the reason for using the thicker 12 millimeter eternity boards was that that
02:23:41 millimeter eternity boards was that that would make it harder for fire to enter the cavity great yes
02:23:49 did you think that those design features were acceptable i think i think given what you've said just a moment ago they were not no they won um and i was fully aware at that stage that the rig
02:24:02 fully aware at that stage that the rig was being over engineered to achieve a pass um you say i think that you sourced the components for the may test can you tell us where you got the
02:24:14 can you tell us where you got the magnesium oxide six millimeter boards from
02:24:17 from yes from um
02:24:21 the same company that produced the sheaving board that went onto the steel frame
02:24:26 frame um versa versaliner i think they're called
02:24:30 called right and he i don't think we were able to find any delivery notes of it do you know when it was delivery delivered to bre was at the same time as the as the um
02:24:41 was at the same time as the as the um the sheathing board yes it was yeah
02:24:45 do you know who signed for it at the bre i would imagine phil clark right so you would imagine why would you imagine that because he took delivery of
02:24:56 because he took delivery of the majority of the materials that were used on on those rigs do you recall having a conversation with phil clark about the use of six millimeter magnesium oxide in those two locations on the rig
02:25:08 oxide in those two locations on the rig yes do you remember when those conversations were um initially when we were talking to the bre about retesting yes um following the meeting with
02:25:20 yes um following the meeting with jamie paul and rob i think i put a phone call into
02:25:24 call into phil to suggest that we were looking to retest
02:25:28 retest we've taken on board obviously what we just learned from the first test and we were going to look to increase the cladding panel to 12 mil and use magnesium oxide at
02:25:40 and use magnesium oxide at fly barrier level two what about the top of the rig um i don't know if i mentioned to him about the the top of the rig or not but looking back on it are you in any doubt
02:25:52 looking back on it are you in any doubt that at least as at the date of the test phil clark was well aware that the rig included a six millimeter magnesium oxide panel at
02:26:03 six millimeter magnesium oxide panel at the level two thermocouples and at the top of the rig yes you say yes are you in any doubt oh sorry no
02:26:10 sorry no you're not in any doubt at all do you know whether to the best of your recollection anybody else at the bre was aware that six millimeter magnesium oxide panels were used sitting behind
02:26:21 oxide panels were used sitting behind the turnip at level two thermocouples and at the top of the rig i don't know right
02:26:32 now the rig was assembled by patrick or patch jones of simcoe i think wasn't it yes
02:26:39 yes did you provide him with any updated drawings which showed the magnesium oxide board no why is that because following the first test so simcoe
02:26:51 following the first test so simcoe created an initial set of drawings for for test one um from memory i think they were based on the dimensions of one test rig there's four at the bre um
02:27:03 one test rig there's four at the bre um and we were subsequently moved on to a different test rig so those initial drawings came out of date very quickly um there was a couple of comments from simcoe that they'd spent a bit too much
02:27:15 simcoe that they'd spent a bit too much time on
02:27:16 time on the design of the rig and i started to get the feeling that they didn't want to they didn't want to help us out anymore really so um
02:27:28 really so um that's that's predominantly the reason why
02:27:31 why the drawings weren't updated right it paragraph 5.35 of your statement you you say that celetex didn't want to pay for updated drawings is that really the reason why simcoe
02:27:42 is that really the reason why simcoe didn't produce any updated drawings yeah i think as i said previously there was a
02:27:48 was a a view that they were starting to become frustrated with the level of involvement that the first test required um and they almost indicated that yes they
02:28:01 and they almost indicated that yes they would need to charge us again for a second set of drawings which celetex didn't really want to pay for right um it wouldn't have been very expensive
02:28:12 um it wouldn't have been very expensive though would it um i don't know what the test fees were or the design well let's just look at one document cel 50980 please
02:28:27 50980 please we can see here that this is an invoice from simcoe dated the 30th of june 2014 uh for uh fart if you look at the left hand side on the description uh
02:28:39 left hand side on the description uh there are two asterisks fire test catch up rig 2 redrawing rig and they charge 420 pounds plus v80 in total 504 pounds
02:28:53 so looks from that that whatever drawings they did do did not cost a great deal of money in the big scheme of things did they no was the real reason that no design drawings were revised
02:29:05 drawings were revised uh and produced by simcoe was to conceal the use of magnesium oxide um six millimeters magnesium oxide
02:29:16 six millimeters magnesium oxide i don't think it was no did anybody from the bre check the final drawings that simcoe had produced against the rig actually constructed um i don't believe they did no
02:29:30 um i don't believe they did no did simcoe regardless of the drawings know
02:29:34 know that what went to the rig included a six millimeter magnesium oxide panel at level two thermocouples and at the top of the rig the installers did yes the installers did yeah does the same go
02:29:45 did yeah does the same go for the use of the eight millimeter marley attorney natura cladding panels at those locations yes do you know whether the ins installers um pass that information back
02:29:56 installers um pass that information back to simcoe i don't know who are the installers um patch as you previously heard yes i don't know who the other individual
02:30:07 i don't know who the other individual was
02:30:15 given that there weren't any up-to-date drawings from simcoe did somebody have to tell patch jones what changes to make and what to put up um yes who was that that was me
02:30:27 um yes who was that that was me right anybody else um no was phil clark involved in those discussions about how to construct the rig
02:30:34 rig no i believe he wasn't right
02:30:41 and paragraph 5.35 of your statement if we can just look at those look at that paragraph you you say
02:30:53 we thought that patrick's is the fourth line we thought the patrick could oversee the construction without the need for revised drawings and then if you go over the page patrick was instructed by me i passed instructions on from paul to rob
02:31:05 instructions on from paul to rob to build the same system as for the first test with two changes thickening the cladding panel to 12 millimeters and inserting the magnet and then and inserting the magnesium oxide board on the fire panel at level
02:31:16 oxide board on the fire panel at level two
02:31:17 two and at the top of the rig did you also tell him to install the eight millimeter uh cladding panels at those locations yes
02:31:25 yes and again were you doing so passing instructions from paul and rob right
02:31:34 and how did you give him those instructions did you just stand at the bottom of the rig and tell him what to do
02:31:39 do yeah yeah i mean i don't confess to be an expert in fixing cladding systems to a rig but patch had obviously installed cladding
02:31:51 patch had obviously installed cladding systems on a number of occasions and i just instructed at level two it needed to change to a six and an eight combination and then equally at the top of the rig right did you explain to him why uh
02:32:04 right did you explain to him why uh those components the six millimeter magnesium oxide and the eight millimeter marley turn it natural cladding panels were going on in those locations yes are you in any doubt in your mind
02:32:15 yes are you in any doubt in your mind about whether he understood what the purpose of that was no did he say anything to you no i think he he
02:32:22 he understood he was curious as to how the first test went um and that was demonstrated that was one of the reasons why the rig resulted right
02:32:39 the rig resulted right uh paragraph 5.37 same page you say once the test started it was quickly apparent that the 12 millimeter cladding panel made a significant difference to the performance of the system in the test
02:32:50 performance of the system in the test compared with the one used in the february test i thought that this was due to the thickening of the cladding panels i thought that the thinner panels cracking had been a reason for the failure of the first test and the thicker panels were more robust
02:33:05 uh how did you well how could you know or think that it was the thicker cladding panel that improved the performance rather than the additional material which had been incorporated
02:33:16 which had been incorporated uh because the nature of the test is you have a rig at the um sorry you have a crib at the bottom of the rig and the flames uh reenact breaking out
02:33:27 and the flames uh reenact breaking out of a window i believe and attacking the face of the cladding panel um and the cladding
02:33:33 cladding panel at that location was the 12 mil marlia turn it i see so that was at the bottom yes
02:33:44 i see so that was at the bottom yes just above the crib correct did you have any discussions with anybody from the bre during the test um not to my recollection though right
02:33:56 um not to my recollection though right was anybody from the bru e apart from phil clark um well was phil carr present during the test
02:34:04 test yes it was anybody else from the bre present during the test i think there were a couple of individuals from the bre but i don't know who they were right stephen howard
02:34:16 know who they were right stephen howard i don't know tony baker again i don't know right you don't know
02:34:22 we then move in time after the test um to may 2014 can we go to cel403116 please
02:34:36 so later in may this is a meeting invitation which you sent to paul evans and he accepted and the subject was an above 18 meter discussion in the cc office for the 12th of may
02:34:50 in the cc office for the 12th of may 2014.
02:34:51 2014. see that cc office does that stand for craig
02:34:55 craig chambers office correct yes was craig chaim what did that meeting take place um i don't know i presume so from do you recall meeting in craig chambers
02:35:07 do you recall meeting in craig chambers office on the 12th of may 2014 i don't know no now the subject of the meeting according to the invitation was above 12 meters
02:35:18 to the invitation was above 12 meters uh this was just before a meeting of the management action group wasn't it i think yes and that was to take place and indeed did take place on the 13th and 14th of
02:35:30 did take place on the 13th and 14th of uh may 2014 yes correct doing the best you can with your recollection on this document was the purpose of the meeting to brief craig chambers about
02:35:41 chambers about this the may test in advance of the meeting
02:35:44 meeting in advance of the mag meeting uh that was
02:35:48 was more than likely yes right but you have no recollection of what you discussed with craig chambers or indeed with paul evans at that meeting i don't know do you remember being asked by paul evans to
02:35:59 by paul evans to prepare some slides for the forthcoming mag meeting i do yes do you remember when it was no i don't right did you yourself attend
02:36:12 no i don't right did you yourself attend the mag meeting on the 13th and or 14th of may i didn't believe i did no
02:36:17 did no let's look at the slides you prepared cel 50933
02:36:26 and these can also be found because i think they've been referred to elsewhere at cel 408648 for the transcript and these are
02:36:37 for the transcript and these are entitled above 18 meters and note uh if you would perhaps you can't but take it from me that that this document
02:36:45 document runs to 17 pages and again if you look at page one but sorry page two the first substantive page
02:36:56 page you can see background approved document b section 12 insulation material section 12.7 do you remember putting the slideshow together yes and starting with that background yes correct yeah
02:37:07 yes correct yeah now uh if we go to page 11
02:37:12 this is slide 11 market research and we can see some bullet points here
02:37:21 let's just look at them everybody uses k15 as there is no alternative nobody understands the test requirements architects ask if it can be used above 18 meters the answer is and this is capitalized yes
02:37:33 answer is and this is capitalized yes building control of hugely differing levels of understanding on the subject give us a board that is an alternative to kingspan and will buy it so those four bullet points there were
02:37:45 so those four bullet points there were they your
02:37:46 they your personal view as a result of your survey of the market that you've done previously um no not just my view i don't think i think um paul had some input on this
02:37:57 i think um paul had some input on this presentation right um and i think a lot of those points had been probably previously discussed in um in some of the initial meetings
02:38:12 right it was the basic point from this slide that you uh wanted to get across to the mag the
02:38:23 uh wanted to get across to the mag the board meetings essentially was that the market was ignorant their ignorance had been exploited by kingspan and you wanted to do the same uh not me personally no but new celetex
02:38:36 uh not me personally no but new celetex yes yes and that's because it was worth 10 million pounds worth of revenues to kingspan i believe so yes and we can see that from the previous slide let's have that up page 10.
02:38:49 last bullet point this is about kingspan
02:38:54 k15
02:38:58 and uh you can see they're worth circa 10 million pounds per annum in the last bullet point now let's look at slide 12. this describes the build up of the first test
02:39:11 describes the build up of the first test testing part one that's a reference to the
02:39:14 the february failed test isn't it correct cost twenty-five thousand pounds system eight millimeters of tourniquet cladding lama therm fire barriers a 100 millimeters fr 5000 sheathing
02:39:25 a 100 millimeters fr 5000 sheathing board metsec frame result terminated after 25 minutes flames extending test facility
02:39:34 and then if we look at slide 14 814 that then describes the build-up of the second test testing part two costs twenty-five thousand pounds system twelve millimeters a tourniquet cladding
02:39:46 twelve millimeters a tourniquet cladding lamitham fire barriers with six millimeter oxide sorry six millimeter magnesium oxide 100 millimeters fr 5000 sheathing board metsec
02:39:57 metsec frame now we can see that there are uh two differences between testing part one and testing part two can't we the first is the increase from
02:40:08 can't we the first is the increase from eight to twelve millimeters of eternity cladding
02:40:12 cladding yes yes and the second is the reference there
02:40:15 there in the second uh dashed bullet to six millimeters of magnesium oxide yes yes um there's no mention there of the thinner layer of malia turnip cladding i.e the eight
02:40:27 malia turnip cladding i.e the eight millimeters at the thermocouple's a level two or at the top of the rig why is that
02:40:32 is that um because i guess i probably um relied on pull to expand on on that system really right
02:40:43 right now do you remember emailing these slides to paul evans on the 14th of may during the meetings
02:40:51 meetings yes can we look at cel 50932
02:41:00 this is an email you sent him
02:41:04 with the presentation and it says no more than that does that tell us that you didn't discuss these slides with paul evans at the meeting on the 12th of
02:41:15 paul evans at the meeting on the 12th of may that's referred to in your outlook diary
02:41:17 diary or at all before you sent them to him i'd have definitely um discussed those slides with him right um prior to me sending them i mean it looks
02:41:29 prior to me sending them i mean it looks like it's
02:41:30 like it's 45 minutes before his time slot of half past 11.
02:41:36 past 11. so it would be very unlikely for me to send a presentation 45 minutes before and say
02:41:43 and say present that yes well thank you for that and that that has uh anticipated i think one or two of my questions later but uh so the short point is you had discussed this 17 page slide deck with him
02:41:56 this 17 page slide deck with him correct now you refer in your statement of paragraph 6.3 if we can just have that
02:42:03 that please in your statement page 14 you say i emailed paul the slide deck on the 14th of may 2014.
02:42:14 of may 2014. this email was timed at 10 46 a.m which implies i may have sent it to paul whilst the board meeting was ongoing but i cannot be sure
02:42:24 uh and then you go on to say following the board meeting paul asked me to create another version of the board presentation which did not refer to the february test or to the six millimeter magnesium oxide
02:42:36 or to the six millimeter magnesium oxide he said that this was for general business use and i'll just go on and finish it off i believe i believe that this shorter version of the slides would be used for the sales team
02:42:45 team i prepared an edited version as purple's instructions now um just going back uh you say um you sent
02:42:56 um you sent these slides to him during the meeting as far as you know were these slides presented to the meeting
02:43:03 meeting i believe so yes all 17 pages in that set were they i don't know um it would be very unlikely to skip slides of the presentation right
02:43:16 skip slides of the presentation right can we then take it that it's your evidence as far as you recall it that everybody at that mag meeting was aware of the differences between the build-up of a failed
02:43:27 build-up of a failed february 2014 test and the build-up of the successful may 2014 test yes yeah do you know who presented those slides
02:43:38 do you know who presented those slides to the meeting um i presume paul i think he had a a flat roofing review and an above 18 meter review to to present now
02:43:51 to present now as we've just seen in your statement at the bottom of page 14 over to the top of page 15 paragraph 6.3 that after that meeting paul evans asked you to produce
02:44:02 you to produce a shorter version of the slides which didn't refer to the february test or the magnesium oxide do you remember whether he asked you to do that in a conversation or a meeting or whether he did that by email
02:44:13 or whether he did that by email no conversation conversation and how soon after the meeting do you remember he asked you to do that um i believe it was on that same day um
02:44:25 that same day um because i think i had a spin meeting which is
02:44:28 which is which is another internal meeting that afternoon so you say at the top of page 15 you say he said that this was
02:44:39 page 15 you say he said that this was for general business use did he use those words um he did yes and then he subsequently expanded on on those as well
02:44:50 what did he say by way of expansion he um suggested that following that meeting the decision had been taken to launch the product
02:45:02 the product um i was to continue to progress with nhbc
02:45:06 nhbc labc and approval sorry and bre testing um and that the decision had been made to emit
02:45:16 emit the magnesium oxide from any reference going forward now you say i believe that this shorter version of the slides would be used for the sales team did he say that or or is it something
02:45:28 did he say that or or is it something you
02:45:29 you inferred um it was it was something that he indicated that when it came to launch and sales team and even the technical center that this shorter version of the slides
02:45:40 that this shorter version of the slides would be used
02:45:45 in the answer before last you said that the decision had been made to emit the magnesium oxide from any reference going forward
02:45:52 forward when you say the decision had been made did you understand him to mean that the mag had made that decision
02:46:01 decision um i don't know whether it was the mag i can only presume because the decision as it was relayed to me was after that
02:46:13 as it was relayed to me was after that meeting
02:46:14 meeting really what i'm trying to get at is whether your impression of of this was that the decision to use a shorter slideshow without the six millimeter magnesium oxide was an mag decision which had been communicated to him which he was then
02:46:26 communicated to him which he was then communicating to you or whether it was just simply his decision as a result of what he picked up at the mag meeting i think it was
02:46:35 was the first of those right thank you
02:46:41 and i think you did produce a shorter version and we're going to come to those in a moment and before i go to those can i just look at
02:46:48 at paragraph 6.4 while we're on that page you say
02:46:51 you say that louise garlic the customer service manager who i believe had apparently been present for at least some of the board meeting spoke to me at around this time and told me that there had been a heated exchange
02:47:02 me that there had been a heated exchange between rob warren and paul as to what to do
02:47:05 to do the upshot as i understood it from miss garlic was that a decision had been taken
02:47:08 taken it was not entirely clear to me when or by whom that there would be no reference to the first failed test nor to the magnesium oxide board used in the second test
02:47:18 test and then you say with the benefit of hindsight it seemed to me that celetex was going down the kingspan route and not giving full details of the system that had been tested and did anybody um else tell you about
02:47:30 and did anybody um else tell you about this heated exchange other than miss garlic
02:47:34 garlic um no i don't believe so what did you understand the heated exchange to have been well at the time
02:47:46 it was most likely the divisive issue that
02:47:49 that had been brought up on many occasions in terms of system versus product commercial versus technical
02:48:00 did you understand who was on what which side yes
02:48:04 side yes and rob warren was on what side technical
02:48:07 technical system and paul evans
02:48:12 commercial i i i those are useful shorthands but does that do we take it from that that rob warren had wanted to be clear and transparent
02:48:25 wanted to be clear and transparent but paul evans not um i think it came back to the initial conversation that had been had in the business on numerous occasions around
02:48:39 are we going to market and launch this product as a system or are we going to market and launch this product into a market that's already established as just another alternative option established on the back of kingspan's
02:48:50 established on the back of kingspan's dominance and what it had told the market
02:48:52 market correct and what those certifying its products were prepared to say yes yeah no
02:49:01 let's go to
02:49:05 the slideshow
02:49:11 before i do let me just ask you one more question given that paul evans had asked you to remove references to the magnesium oxide in the slides did you understand that he had supported that decision
02:49:23 had supported that decision during the heated exchange or at the mag meeting more generally yes let's look at the slide cel 50961
02:49:37 now you remember that the one you produced for the meeting was 17 pages this now comes down to 12 pages is this your revised slide pack i believe it is yes in response to mr
02:49:49 i believe it is yes in response to mr evans instructions yes yes now
02:49:53 yes now we can thumb through it but it's right isn't it that this doesn't mention the february test at all no no and that was presumably to conceal the fact that celetex had failed the february test
02:50:04 february test right yeah and if we look at slide nine page nine we can now see the description of the
02:50:10 of the test build up which of course is the second test as we know cost twenty five thousand system twelve millimeters eternity cladding
02:50:19 cladding lambeth fire barriers and note no reference there to the six millimeter magnesium oxide and then it goes on as per 100 millimeters fr 5000 sheathing board metsec frame result past
02:50:31 sheathing board metsec frame result past completed 60 minutes testing
02:50:35 now i've just shown you this uh there's no mention of the magnesium oxide and indeed there's no mention of the eight millimeters of tourniquet cladding either in the same way as in fact hadn't been
02:50:46 in the same way as in fact hadn't been mentioned in the 17-page version uh and again was both of those emissions were both of those emissions designed to mislead the reader into thinking um that the build up here we can see on page
02:50:57 the build up here we can see on page nine was the actual build up tested correct yes yeah now you say in paragraph 6.5 of your statement if we can just go back to the page we were on in your statement with the benefit of hindsight it seemed
02:51:09 with the benefit of hindsight it seemed to me that celetex was going down the kingspan route and not giving full details of the system that had been tested in fact you knew at the time
02:51:16 the time surely that this slide was downright misleading yes yeah i did you did and intended to mislead yes and did you realize at the time that
02:51:27 yes and did you realize at the time that if this was how the test was to be described to the market it would be a fraud on the market
02:51:34 uh yes yeah i did did you not feel at the time a sense that that was wrong i felt i felt incredibly uncomfortable with it i
02:51:48 recall going home that evening i still live with my parents at the time and
02:51:54 and mentioned that to them and i felt incredibly uncomfortable with what i was being asked to do um yeah was there anybody in celetex you
02:52:07 yeah was there anybody in celetex you could have gone to and shared those concerns with um all of the
02:52:14 the senior management
02:52:18 we're in that we're in that meeting so it's the answer to my question no no yeah no um
02:52:29 no yeah no um now following the may fire test that's right isn't it that the bre provided you with a series of uh reports or a number of reports yes correct yes yes and there are in
02:52:41 yes correct yes yes and there are in fact i think three different reports um we have a full and correct me if i'm wrong about this there's a full test report uh dated the 1st of august 2014
02:52:52 2014 which bears the number 295369 and that ran to some 33 pages that's right yes and then there's a classification report 295 255 which run to 12 pages
02:53:05 295 255 which run to 12 pages there was also i think a summary classification report which had four pages
02:53:10 pages um also under report reference two nine five two five five am i right about that yes right now let's see if we can trace the chronology through um
02:53:22 trace the chronology through um mr rupert are you all right to carry on or should we have a break no that's fine yeah yeah we will we'll finish at one o'clock yeah okay all right um the first is cel403177
02:53:40 uh and this is an email of the 19th of june 2014 from phil clark to you
02:53:47 and it's timed at 10 30. now that becomes important later because at that time i think you were about to go into a meeting with the nhbc weren't you yes i was here dave white uh
02:53:58 weren't you yes i was here dave white uh and
02:53:58 and um graeme smith i think it is imperial right uh
02:54:05 right uh and he says john please find attached a draft report for comment only this is not the only version and the such is liable to change and has not been through the bre quality system if you have any changes you wish to include please let me know and i will
02:54:16 include please let me know and i will endeavor to include them in the final version
02:54:21 version uh now am i right in thinking that was the full test report although in draft i believe so yes yes uh do you know why it took them so long to issue you a draft um no i think that was
02:54:34 you a draft um no i think that was standard practice at the bra i think they were um traditionally very slow at issuing test reports
02:54:41 reports can we look at the uh report it's cel four zeros three one seven eight
02:54:52 and that's the first page there on the screen
02:54:55 screen and it's called issue one and there's a date of the second of june 2014.
02:55:04 and if we go to
02:55:15 yes we can come to that that's that's the first version and i think what then happens and i'll come back into that document in a moment just chronologically uh you then reply reply to that on the first of july
02:55:27 reply to that on the first of july cel401350
02:55:28 cel401350 we just have that that's an email from you to
02:55:32 you to phil clark copy to paul evans and jamie hayes
02:55:37 hayes and in the second paragraph there you say i've asked him to send these through to you in my absence there's robert we haven't got it yet mr minute thank you
02:55:48 minute thank you the first paragraph refers to the updated drawings in the second paragraph you say
02:55:53 you say i've asked him to send these through to you in my absence can you please run these by jamie to check all the details and send through to phil at bre the relevant drawings etc and and then
02:56:05 and and then you um you say fillers due to go off on leave now i'll come back to that email later on but in chronological terms
02:56:18 uh that's when you made comments i think and if we look at the second email down
02:56:31 over onto the second page this is an email from you of the first of july to phil clark
02:56:39 and you say at the top of page two as discussed please find attached our first draft comments for our br 135 test report
02:56:47 report annotations are highlighted throughout the document
02:56:52 and you you see we will send these through sent through the revised drawings to replace figures four five and six once we receive updated details from simcoe this week and then you say as previously discussed could you also replace figure
02:57:03 discussed could you also replace figure 18
02:57:04 18 with the attached photographs as we want to show a close-up of the condition of our insulation below and above fire break with the intumescent fire fired off if you feel you also have a suitable photograph then please include
02:57:17 photograph then please include i'll come back to that in a minute but just just in chronological terms that was when you sent that
02:57:24 and then if you go to
02:57:30 cel403234
02:57:35 this is uh if you go to the second email down on that page
02:57:41 you could see that there's an email that's from phil clark to you 30th of july 2014 at 11 11. john please find attached pdf unapproved of the test report as
02:57:52 unapproved of the test report as requested regards phil clark and the subject line says emailing cellotalks draft version 4 for signing see that
02:58:07 now version 4 came then but it looks like version 1 amended from you came to him on the 1st of july were there any changes to the test report during july do you remember which
02:58:18 report during july do you remember which led to version four
02:58:22 were there any changes to the test report
02:58:26 report um between him initially issuing the draft back in the first of july
02:58:32 july um yes there were some updated drawings and then there was this request for a photograph to be removed right well we'll come back to the the photographs but it's right that the main
02:58:44 photographs but it's right that the main changes between version one what you then commented on in version four that he sends back to you at the end of july were changes to drawings and photographs drawings and photographs yes
02:58:55 yes and then if we go to bre four zeros five five one
02:58:59 five one four
02:59:09 this is
02:59:13 uh a the report issue one dated the fourth of all august 2014 of the classification report
02:59:26 and if you go to cel40208
02:59:35 this is an email of the 11th of august
02:59:48 cell 2008
03:00:04 uh um if you look at the second email down debbie kent sends you an email on the 11th of august dear john apologies for the format error please find attached reissued report with amendments
03:00:15 attached reissued report with amendments and that was the classification report and is it right that it had to be reissued because in places it contained an error message as a result yeah and then i think issue 2 was then sent out with that fixed on the same day and that was the
03:00:27 fixed on the same day and that was the only change correct right um it's right to think that the bre never sent you a four-page report isn't it that's right right
03:00:39 mr chairman i think that's a convenient moment we're going to look next at the full test report in a little bit more detail yes well it probably is a good point then isn't it we'll have a break now mr rover so we
03:00:51 we'll have a break now mr rover so we can all get some lunch um i'm going to ask you to be back at two o'clock please and uh not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it uh over the adjournment all right thank
03:01:02 uh over the adjournment all right thank you very much i'd like to give the usher please
03:01:13 thank you two o'clock he's okay
03:02:07 you