Celotex Evidence - Tuesday 17th November 2020 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:14 yes would you ask mr m's to come back in please

00:00:17 please thank you

00:00:37 mr evans ready to carry on i am thank you thank you very much yes mr millet mr evans uh can i ask you please next to go to cel409531

00:00:53 this is an email sent by jamie hayes to you among other people on the 30th of may 2014

00:01:01 may 2014 jamie hayes is a technical services officer and he says hi all the first article is interesting for those of us involved in the 18-meter project

00:01:10 project now just before i show you what he's sending you the 18 meter project was at that

00:01:15 that time a marketing or presentational initiative to access the 18 meter market wasn't it yes

00:01:23 yes and to drive a celetex product into that market

00:01:27 market yes yes to have a solution in that market you have a solution in that market

00:01:31 market when you say a solution do you mean a product a product yes yeah and then if we um

00:01:35 we um by this stage end of may i think you'd become a head of marketing hadn't you first of may 2013 yes so this was 30 days into that yes can we look at what he attaches at

00:01:46 yes can we look at what he attaches at the bottom of page one and over to page two

00:01:48 two it's something called red book live uh do you know what that is yeah i've heard of redbook live yes what is it or what was it it's a publication i believe

00:02:00 it's a publication i believe produced by the bre where there are

00:02:07 products and systems related to applications that are listed and if you go to page two please there's an article within it which has a

00:02:18 there's an article within it which has a caption

00:02:19 caption as you can see at the top of the page the latest high-profile fire in the uae has reaffirmed the need for properly approved installed and maintained cladding systems in high-rise

00:02:30 maintained cladding systems in high-rise buildings

00:02:31 buildings and that's a quotation from debbie smith dr debbie smith obe director of fire sciences and building products bre global when this came did you read this document and in particular

00:02:42 document and in particular that part of it i don't recall either were you aware in general terms of the importance of complying with the building regulations yes were you aware of the fire in the

00:02:54 yes were you aware of the fire in the uae that's been referred to here in this part of this document i don't believe so do you remember that there was significant coverage of fires in dubai in 2015 and

00:03:05 coverage of fires in dubai in 2015 and 2016 in industry publications not that i recall now were you aware in general terms of the fires in 2012 2013 in the uae

00:03:17 2012 2013 in the uae involving cladding on the exterior of high-rise buildings i don't believe so at the time does that tell us that you weren't aware that those

00:03:26 those external cladding fires had involved acm panels i wouldn't have known that detail no right in general terms did you have any understanding at the time that acm

00:03:39 understanding at the time that acm panels were being used which involved or included

00:03:42 included the use of a core comprised of polyethylene i don't believe the term acn would have meant

00:03:50 meant a huge amount to me now in 2013 what about later

00:03:57 even later i don't believe it was a term that i i saw a lot was it not

00:04:04 acm i know with the benefit of having seen documents aluminium etcetera but i didn't have a huge amount of detail of knowledge about acm and the different types of acm

00:04:15 types of acm leaving aside the question for the moment of acm were you aware in general terms that installing combustible rain screen panels as cladding

00:04:23 cladding on the exterior of a building was likely to increase the risk of fire spread over the surface the external surface of the building

00:04:32 can you sorry can you say that again please are you aware at the time that installing combustible rain screen panels

00:04:40 panels as cladding material on the exterior of a building was likely to increase the risk of fire spread over the exterior surface of the building i was aware that there

00:04:51 of the building i was aware that there was different types of cladding panels that needed to make sure that that didn't happen but i wouldn't have known the technical detail to

00:04:59 to what that meant or what they were right um can i turn to the topic of john roper and his role in the above 80 meter project

00:05:09 project now mr roper joined celetex in 2012 didn't he

00:05:12 didn't he yes and like you he had a degree in business management yes but no technical qualifications as he's told the inquiry now he joined straight from university i believe indeed with no technical

00:05:23 believe indeed with no technical qualifications uh and uh as you say in your statement we don't need to turn it up it's paragraph 17 on page five you say it was his first job as a graduate fresh out of university yes yes and you i think were his line

00:05:35 yes yes and you i think were his line manager i was and you were his line manager and he came into celetex yes and throughout his time there at least until october 2014 isn't that right

00:05:46 until october 2014 isn't that right john left the marketing department to join the sales team around that time and then debbie berger took over from him and debbie burger there was a there was a kind of a phased handover so whether there was it was

00:05:57 handover so whether there was it was fully in october i don't know but yeah and until you became head of marketing in may 2013 was he the only person you were managing yes did your promotion to head

00:06:09 managing yes did your promotion to head of marketing in may 2013 make any difference to the degree

00:06:15 degree to which you supervised him

00:06:19 it would have meant that i was then managing

00:06:22 managing uh another part or another function of the marketing department the marketing communications so yes my attention would from a line management perspective i would have been

00:06:33 management perspective i would have been line managing more people but did that the fact that you were managing more people did that make any difference to the degree of supervision which you exercised over mr roper's work not that i recall now no okay um

00:06:47 not that i recall now no okay um can we go to your statement please at page 15

00:06:51 page 15 and go to paragraph 54

00:06:55 you say there as the effective manager of the project that's with a capital p just for those looking at that statement for the first time that's the above 18 meter project is it yes

00:07:08 above 18 meter project is it yes you say it was mr roper's role to lead it and do the day-to-day work on it

00:07:14 uh did you consider that mr haye mister and then you go on mr hayes role was to provide some technical expertise when needed

00:07:23 needed did you consider that mr roper was adequately experienced suitably old and technically qualified to lead a project of this importance the above

00:07:34 a project of this importance the above 18 meter

00:07:35 18 meter market project i don't believe i considered it no you didn't consider it only on the basis that there was other people across the celetex business that could support

00:07:46 the celetex business that could support in the same way that i had received support when i was in a similar position to john roper that would give him the

00:07:52 him the required technical knowledge and other knowledge that he would need to do to support

00:07:57 support the role in effectively managing the project

00:08:01 project when did you give mr roper the role of manager of the project

00:08:08 i can't be 100 certain but i believe it would have been towards uh the end of

00:08:16 at some point in early 2013 maybe i've seen something where john's kpis were key performance indicator sorry had this project within them and they

00:08:27 had this project within them and they were dated january 13th they were and we'll come to that documentary course mr evans certainly by january 2013

00:08:33 2013 yes so it would have been before then of course uh

00:08:36 course uh but you can't remember precisely when when you appointed mr roper the effective manager of the above 80 meter project did you consider whether he was the most suitable experienced technically qualified person

00:08:47 qualified person to run a project of that importance

00:08:51 i think the decision was more based around

00:08:54 around um the product managers were primarily the people that ran projects in the same way that i had experienced and therefore it was the natural

00:09:02 natural thing for john to to get involved in why did you pick him well if it was for if it was a product manager he was the only product manager in the business

00:09:13 only product manager in the business i see did you not have second thoughts given his

00:09:17 given his youth and inexperience on the basis of the

00:09:21 the knowledge i knew that john would have around the business in helping them then no

00:09:32 you mean given the knowledge that given that you knew that mr roper would have plenty of help if he needed it from those around you yes that's what you mean to be clear

00:09:43 yes that's what you mean to be clear right um you then go on in paragraph 54 to say mr hayes role was to provide some technical expertise when needed did you consider that jamie hayes

00:09:51 hayes had technical expertise

00:09:56 i'm not sure i considered it i've worked with jamie for or knew of jamie working for longer in the business as

00:10:02 as almost rob warren's sort of um second in command in the technical center so i would have had no doubt that jamie had that technical knowledge to support john he had no technical qualifications

00:10:13 john he had no technical qualifications himself did he i don't know i don't believe so now

00:10:22 would it be fair to say that certainly up to

00:10:29 october 2014 when he left to go to the sales department you effectively micromanaged mr roper's work no i wouldn't say micromanaged

00:10:40 micromanaged you were aware of everything he was doing and and closely supervised it i was aware of what john's workload was in the same way i was aware of other people

00:10:49 people in the team's workload but i wouldn't describe myself as micromanaging no not in the sense of doing his work for him but when i use the word micromanage it's a word that's used by this by other witnesses of your attitude to

00:11:01 by other witnesses of your attitude to supervising him you don't agree with that is that is that right not based on my definition of of micro managing no i liked to know i was new to being a head of marketing so

00:11:13 of marketing so maybe compared to other managers style maybe i was closer to certain parts of different people's roles but i wouldn't describe that as micromanaging no would you say that you supervise mr

00:11:24 would you say that you supervise mr roper's work on the above 80 meter project closely i had a [Music]

00:11:32 [Music] a general understanding of what john was doing

00:11:36 doing and knew that he had support around him with the likes of jamie to to help him yeah and others there's not quite an answer to my question i'd compress you a little would you say that you supervised mr roll's

00:11:48 you say that you supervised mr roll's work on the above 18 meter project closely

00:11:52 closely did you follow what he was doing closely yes i do i believe i did yes i mean you can't

00:11:59 can't sitting there recall a a an area of work or thing he did or project he he ran without you knowing about it for example no no uh

00:12:11 and he would periodically update you

00:12:16 yes he would update me if whether that was through a a sit-down review or or informally yes and you were copied in on on [Music]

00:12:28 [Music] all the emails or very many of most of the emails that he would have sent or received in relation to the above 18 meter project i i don't know whether i was copied in on what percentage i don't know how many he

00:12:39 he he would have sent but i would have i know i've been copied in on on quite a lot on based on what i've had to review yes yeah can we look at ceo40290 please

00:12:51 can we look at ceo40290 please this is the document i think you referred to him um a few moments ago in your evidence it's entitled objectives kpis for 2013. and the date is at the bottom left-hand corner pe january 2013. did you draft

00:13:04 corner pe january 2013. did you draft this document yes in january 2013 i don't know whether it was done in 2013 but on the basis it says 2013 and generally we issued kpis for our team at the start of the

00:13:16 for our team at the start of the calendar year then yes and you can see as uh objective number four uh implementation of bim into celatex specification service offering

00:13:30 specification service offering what was that that was celetex having its products what's called build it um suitable for what's called building information modelling right and then if you look at items item five objective number five accreditation for

00:13:42 objective number five accreditation for fr5000 for use in above 80 meter applications and that was to be achieved by december 2013

00:13:51 2013 and the measure there was to test report and launched to sales team so does that tell us that at the beginning of 2013 uh your objective or kpi

00:14:03 uh your objective or kpi uh was to get fr 5000 accredited for above 18 meter applications and launched an out to the sales team uh by the end of the year yes yeah and that would give a 20

00:14:16 yes yeah and that would give a 20 weighting

00:14:16 weighting in the kpis for uh individual salespeople that it would uh it would mean that john would have achieved 20 of his kpi target yes right

00:14:28 20 of his kpi target yes right now that leads to my next question was the were these objectives and kpis solely for john roper or were they for other people too

00:14:37 no looking at them all everybody in the team and everybody in the business would have had their own objectives and kpis uh and were these for john roper yes and only him yes yeah thank you

00:14:48 yes and only him yes yeah thank you uh can we

00:14:52 understand the weighting um the weighting as you can see is divided into six parts

00:14:56 six parts different percentages arriving at 100 if you hit 100 what would happen so you would achieve 100 of your kpi

00:15:07 so you would achieve 100 of your kpi target which was also linked to the businesses financial bonus scheme that they ran right so you got a bonus over and above your salary if you hit 100 uh you didn't have to hit 100 to

00:15:20 uh you didn't have to hit 100 to achieve the bonus right what if you hit 30 percent i don't know i don't think anybody in the team ever hit 30 so but so let's say there was uh the way it used to work is that a

00:15:33 uh the way it used to work is that a certain amount of percentage of salary was assigned to everybody for hitting their targets so they achieved 100 of their target they received 100 of the bonus so to answer your question they would have received 30 of their bonus i see

00:15:46 have received 30 of their bonus i see so accreditation for our fr 5000 was to john roper worth 20 of the potential bonus yes and what was the proportion in 2013 of the bonus to the salary john roper's

00:15:59 of the bonus to the salary john roper's bonus to john roper's salary at that time um the number changed slightly but on average the bonus i think

00:16:06 think paid about 10 right per year i see so succeeding on accreditation under item 5 would give him 20 of 10 of his salary yes um

00:16:17 of 10 of his salary yes um were there any consequence of consequences for failing to meet these targets

00:16:22 targets other than not getting the percentage of the bonus

00:16:25 the bonus not that i ever experienced no right can we then look a little bit more closely at the research done for the 18 meter project can we go to cel401340 please

00:16:40 this is a document called above 18 meter action plan and it's if you look at the footer on the first page and we'll have to flick up to that

00:16:51 up to that in the bottom right hand corner it says prepared by jr march 2013. did you have any input into this document

00:17:00 i don't believe so and the jr there is john roper yes yeah did you ask him to prepare it

00:17:11 i don't know you don't know would he have prepared this document without your asking him to do so based on his experience at the time unlikely right and we could see uh uh uh under findings

00:17:24 and we could see uh uh uh under findings in the second sentence there between august 12 and january 13 celetex recorded lost opportunity from not having above 18 meters or 70 000 square meters

00:17:35 000 square meters now that's something that we saw from the spreadsheet this morning isn't it yes it is one of two gaps in which we cannot compete with cool therm products only kingspan k15 and extra therm save

00:17:46 only kingspan k15 and extra therm save our market that they've achieved above 80 meters for accreditation both are in accordance with bs8414 part one onto a masonry wall so the gap one gap was the kingspan cool

00:17:58 so the gap one gap was the kingspan cool firm gap what was the other gap do you remember

00:18:06 trying to think of the

00:18:09 no i don't recall

00:18:12 either way is it fair to say that this document when produced to you by john raper in march 2018 13 uh identified to you that the above 18

00:18:23 uh identified to you that the above 18 meter market was seen as a significant commercial opportunity for celetex

00:18:30 yes yes and indeed that is why you tasked him with with the accreditation of fr 5000. yes it was a gap that celetex had in its product range

00:18:41 celetex had in its product range and the launch of the 5000 range the the strategy of the company was to make sure that we had products that could compete with kingspan cortha

00:18:53 kingspan cortha well you say the launch of the 5000 range that already existed didn't it yes but when we launched that range there was we there was only there were some applications which we didn't compete with

00:19:04 compete with and one of which was above 18 meters yes and i've just remembered i believe the second one was the plasterboard laminates right k-17 and k-18 okay uh now uh why have you just

00:19:15 okay uh now uh why have you just remembered that because i've been thinking about the different cool thing products that were in the range right there's nothing in this document that no no it's my knowledge out of you on that issue right um i want to ask you some

00:19:27 issue right um i want to ask you some questions now about sotech can we go to cel 401851 please

00:19:35 this is an email run from june 2013 and it starts at the top with an email from uh

00:19:45 from uh from jonathan rapper to you and the subject is re paul tollavi and i'd like just to look at

00:19:51 at the uh

00:19:55 at that email and it says uh in that email there uh in the second paragraph start to put together a process map had

00:20:08 start to put together a process map had a conversation with the guy i met at the reba event from satech optima this morning seems to have a huge amount of experience testing to part one and part two interestingly they've only tested using

00:20:19 interestingly they've only tested using rockwool dua slab as when originally using k15 in their system the test failed twice they then reverted to rockwool and passed but warned that pir isn't the easiest of materials to fire test

00:20:30 easiest of materials to fire test he suggested ifc cx and sotek arrange a meet sotec definitely seemed valuable and in particular their md john who stayed down at watford for two weeks straight ensuring every detail of

00:20:41 weeks straight ensuring every detail of the structure was put together correctly did you have any further discussion with mr roper about the failed k-15 tests following receipt from him of this email in june 2013.

00:20:53 of this email in june 2013. not that i recall now did you ask him what what he meant by pir isn't the easiest of materials to fire test as we see there i don't believe so no

00:21:04 as we see there i don't believe so no did you understand or did you not understand from this email that you would have difficulty designing a system which would meet the br 135 criteria using pir

00:21:15 i don't recall what when i read this email what my thinking was i know that john was on a market research market scoping

00:21:24 scoping exercise and there seemed to be other people that he was able to meet ifc and sotech for example that would that would be able to take that knowledge further did you know that mr roper then did meet satech later in the month later

00:21:36 did meet satech later in the month later in june 2013. i know he met with sotech i wouldn't recall exactly when that was okay let's have a look at ceo40180 please these are

00:21:47 please these are notes of his meeting with so tech on

00:21:55 the 22nd of june 2013 do you remember seeing these notes did he send you these notes i believe he did yes yeah and if we go halfway down the page we can see that it says saytek and bsa414

00:22:08 can see that it says saytek and bsa414 parts one and two uh and um it says there um both systems incorporated rockwool insulation and aim fire barriers

00:22:19 insulation and aim fire barriers uh part two testing provisionally used k-15 is the insulation forced upon by metsec who built the steel frame 15 minutes testing bre extinguished the chamber due to firing at the nine meter level using k15

00:22:30 level using k15 sotek reverted to rockwood and passed aluminium railing assisting and cladding panels found to melt and allow fire into cavity outer face resistant to fire and tolerance of fire barrier has proven

00:22:41 and tolerance of fire barrier has proven to be crucial

00:22:44 now were you you were told here clearly that the success of the test is often dependent on the cladding material that's used you could see that yes and specifically in relation to

00:22:55 yes and specifically in relation to cladding materials um he says and i've read it to you the aluminium railing system and cladding panels

00:23:01 panels found to melt and allow fire to enter cavity did you take from that that this made it clear that it was unlikely that it would be possible to test

00:23:10 test pir rs 5000 as it became with aluminium cladding

00:23:14 cladding in the test rig i don't recall having any

00:23:18 any thinking about aluminium and cladding panels i think what was developing over this time

00:23:24 this time is a knowledge that

00:23:29 you need not not all ra rain screen cladding systems will pass bs8414

00:23:35 bs8414 right and it would depend upon the individual components of the particular rig being tested the yes the there was yeah yes component

00:23:47 the yes the there was yeah yes component parts yes

00:23:47 parts yes yes and then if you look a little bit lower down it says k15 bba certification and literature as a heading and the note starts astonished as to how k15 is used so

00:23:58 astonished as to how k15 is used so widely based on testing involving a cement particle board as the outer face to represent a typical cladding panel

00:24:06 because the and it goes on uh identified that caseband used promisil fire barriers etc now just pausing there

00:24:17 now just pausing there it was both john roper and uh the eggintons and celotex who expressed the astonishment about how k-15 could be used so widely given what they tested

00:24:28 used so widely given what they tested did you know that or did you take that from this note i don't know where the astonished yet didn't know who was astonished from wouldn't have known who was astonished from that note whether it was

00:24:39 astonished from that note whether it was a point made from john or from other people in the meeting right in your statement uh page 17 you deal with this note at paragraph 64

00:24:50 paragraph 64 and you say the note is also recorded astonished etc and then you quote extensively from the note

00:24:59 the note and you say i did not recall my what my thoughts were on reading this at the time i assume now that the astonishment was on the part of sotech individuals rather than mr ropa

00:25:11 i do recall developing a developing belief emerging around this time that what kingspan had tested was not necessarily representative of what was actually being used in the market

00:25:20 market and also that kingspan had not been particularly clear in its literature about the system it had tested for bs 8414 part one i recall the k-15 specification literature which from memory did not make prominent

00:25:31 memory did not make prominent the system details which kingspan had tested to

00:25:35 tested to now is it at that point in time that we can trace your understanding that kingspan's k15 had

00:25:46 understanding that kingspan's k15 had passed the bsa414 test with one kind of rig but was being used in

00:25:52 in a much wider series or set of applications

00:25:58 i think that's what we're beginning to understand what i was beginning to understand from this document yes and did you also take from this document that kingspan literature that you had read had the potential to mislead people into

00:26:09 had the potential to mislead people into believing that kingspan k-15 could be used in systems that had not in fact been tested i remember the k-15 specification literature you

00:26:20 literature you it wasn't very easy to see the system that had been tested

00:26:27 as you say in your statement did you all say i'm going to press you on the question i asked you did you also think that the kingspan literature had the potential to mislead people

00:26:38 people into believing that k-15 could be used in systems which hadn't actually gone the undergone the bs-8414 test that had passed on the basis that it was difficult to

00:26:49 difficult to see the system that's uh the king spanner tested then yes yes were you not concerned that kingspan had not managed to achieve a pass with a system that was representative given the potential similarities between

00:27:01 given the potential similarities between fr 5000 as as it was and kingspan k-15 i think at the time when you i was thinking about king spanners that

00:27:12 thinking about king spanners that as as the business that they that they were the site the size of the business it made me think there must have been other ways that they were able to get the product certified or allowed to be used on on buildings

00:27:24 used on on buildings and were you curious to know how they'd done it

00:27:28 at the time i would have been curious yes well i'm talking about at the time yes

00:27:32 yes yeah now it's right to think that mr roper subsequently sent you a project plan and business case you remember that remember seeing one uh i remember seeing

00:27:44 remember seeing one uh i remember seeing one reviewing my documents and it would have been a standard part of our product development to have put together a business case cel401858 please

00:27:56 this is a his business case as you can see from the bottom right hand corner

00:28:05 and if you go

00:28:11 to the first page under jr it says project definition and the date is on the right-hand side 7th of june 13. so this is before the

00:28:22 7th of june 13. so this is before the satay meeting objective to develop and launch ae

00:28:25 launch ae 5000 suitable for rain screen clouding applications fire tested in accordance with bs8414 for use above 18 meters now ae 5000 what does that what does ae

00:28:37 now ae 5000 what does that what does ae stand for

00:28:38 stand for it was a working title for the project which would have stood for above 18. so a e above 18. so not rs at that stage no we changed we made a decision to change it to range screen 5

00:28:49 screen 5 or rs 5000 at a later date when was that i don't recall exactly when right under market information and current position in the next block down uh it says

00:29:01 block down uh it says in the last sentence one of the main product gaps against phenolic is for use in buildings above 18 meters in height it seems from this that competition with phenolic

00:29:12 phenolic was the main driver for why celetex felt it needed to develop a product for use above 18 meters is that right yes it was one of the main drivers of the yeah and in the next block down in the

00:29:24 yeah and in the next block down in the last

00:29:24 last two sentences it says phenolic products primarily k15 make up 450 000 square meters of overall annual opportunity this equates to a market value for rigid board insulation into a ventilated

00:29:36 board insulation into a ventilated facade applications of 5.5 million pounds

00:29:44 now you say your statement just looking at that

00:29:48 at that and this is paragraph 44 on page 12 there's no need to go to it that the above 80 meter project was just one of many projects that the marketing department was involved with during 2013 and 2014.

00:29:59 involved with during 2013 and 2014. is it fair to say that it was a particularly important project at that time

00:30:04 time it was an important project yes because it was addressing one of your main market gaps against one of your main competitors

00:30:12 yes under the next block routes to market

00:30:15 market push stroke pull strategy applies primary market of specifiers architects and range screen specific contractors secondary market of specialist distributors did the marketing strategy rely in part

00:30:27 did the marketing strategy rely in part on getting distributors to push ae 5000 as as it was then called

00:30:35 the main purpose of the push pull strategy was for us to generate demand for products through specifiers and architects and the role of the distributor was to

00:30:47 and the role of the distributor was to service those requests which was the opposite really of the general 4000 celotex range the opposite applied

00:30:53 applied right i rather got the opposite impression that the uh it would be the architects and professionals who would be pulling it in by demand

00:31:00 by demand and distributors who were basically at the end of the sales chain would be pushing it out is that wrong yeah the push-pull strategy i never quite understood the the terminology there but essentially

00:31:12 the terminology there but essentially what it was was what that means is it's about getting specifiers architects etc to put the product into drawings and planning proposals design proposals sorry at an early stage right therefore the

00:31:24 at an early stage right therefore the distributor really then just services the demand for the product through the insulation manufacturer all right so to summarize your understanding of this the principal

00:31:36 understanding of this the principal route to market was specifiers architects and rain screen specific contractors in other words

00:31:42 words users wouldn't say they were end users we wouldn't have determined an architect as an end user would you not no you would have said they were designers specifiers all right

00:31:53 designers specifiers all right uh well let me try this one people making the ultimate decisions on what insulation products to use above 18 meters

00:31:59 meters yes right if we go to page two under testing stroke approvals we can see

00:32:06 see on the top of the page there that the the report says above 18 meter approval in accordance with both bs 8414.1 and bs eight four one four part two

00:32:15 part two bba approval in year two or three of kingspan's attack starts to affect level of business what did you mean or what did you understand was meant there by king's fans attack

00:32:26 kingspan's attack there would have meant um a reaction to the fact that an application that they have almost entirely to themselves for rigid foam is starting to have other manufacturers

00:32:37 is starting to have other manufacturers competing with i see so did you expect them to retaliate in response to your proposed launch of rs 5000 as it became i don't really recall thinking too much about that other than knowing what kingspan

00:32:49 knowing what kingspan how kingspan had generally reacted to other products that we'd launched into that kind of space that they um that they were in did do we take from

00:33:00 um that they were in did do we take from this that

00:33:01 this that the proposal that at least that john roper was putting forward to you was that there would be no need to go and get bba approval for rs 5000 until uh one or two two years maybe

00:33:12 until uh one or two two years maybe three years in to see whether kingspan effectively uh retaliated perhaps or it might be worded

00:33:21 worded just reading it there sorry is that the fact that kingspan had a bba certificate they might use that as a um a counter attack against zelitex well it says bba

00:33:34 against zelitex well it says bba approval in year two or three that would be

00:33:36 be celetex acquiring bba approval yes if kingspan's attack starts to affect level of business and the way i read that correct me if i'm wrong is

00:33:44 wrong is that you would only get bba approval in those years depending upon whether kingspan's attack as you called it

00:33:51 it it's re it's it's reaction started to affect the level of rs 5000 business yes yes and in the meantime you wouldn't need to go and get a bba approval

00:34:03 need to go and get a bba approval i don't believe bba approval was seen as um

00:34:08 um necessary for launch now then um under installation requirements it says no change from existing fr 5000 rain screen clouding application details reports showing permutations of fire test will be available

00:34:22 is that because the fr 5000 rain screen cladding as it were was the same as rs 5000

00:34:29 5000 in in other words installation requirements wouldn't need to change because the product was the same now i think it's because the application is the same in whether it's about below 18 meters

00:34:41 in whether it's about below 18 meters which is the celotex would have been supplying into the below 18 meter range green cladding market i don't think the application guidelines would have changed depending if it went above 18 meters yes i understand

00:34:53 i understand further down the page uh it says under product positions and usps in the final sentence there a easier specification solution and 15 more cost effective than kingspan what did uh easier specifications

00:35:05 what did uh easier specifications solution mean to you

00:35:09 i don't i don't know actually does it did it mean a wider range of applications than k-15 no i don't believe so was it anything to do with uh lambdas uh with the u values

00:35:23 lambdas uh with the u values no i don't i don't recall what i don't ever remember seeing easier specification solution used anywhere else when we were just launching the rs 5000 range going back

00:35:34 launching the rs 5000 range going back to

00:35:35 to installation requirements uh in the light of that it says reports showing permutations of fire test will be available in the second sentence there

00:35:45 there was your plan at this point to get a field of application report is that what the report i don't know whether that was at this stage i can't remember the timeline of i can't remember when this document was dated and how that relates to the other

00:35:57 dated and how that relates to the other timings of when we were working up what did you understand report showing permutations of fire test to mean

00:36:04 i'm sitting here today sorry i don't know okay

00:36:10 and then uh

00:36:15 it going back down to product positions and usp section looking at the uh second and third sentences

00:36:23 sentences you see it says uh over 100 percent more thermally efficient than mineral fiber insulation materials better u values and thinner solutions is that a reference to uh the um the u

00:36:35 is that a reference to uh the um the u values

00:36:37 values being better than for not than phenolic and therefore less of it being required on the exterior of a building i think it's more linked to the mineral fibre because celatex had a worse lambda value than

00:36:50 celatex had a worse lambda value than kingspan so we wouldn't have been able to say better u values i see now

00:36:56 i see now can i just ask you some questions about ifc

00:36:59 ifc yes can we go to cel402743 please

00:37:10 these are handwritten notes of a meeting between ifc and celetex dated the 22nd of july 2013. now we understand that rob warren was

00:37:21 now we understand that rob warren was the author of these notes but that you were present at the meeting do you remember this meeting i remember being at one meeting with ifc yes and do you think this was it

00:37:32 ifc yes and do you think this was it 22nd of july 2013 with the date ring a bell with you the date doesn't ring about the name peter jackman does um the name pavina patel does as well

00:37:43 um the name pavina patel does as well but i don't i thought when i met with peter it was just peter from ifc but i can't be 100 certain and if we look uh at the top of the page we can see that the title of the meeting is above

00:37:55 that the title of the meeting is above 18 meter test and we can see that peter jackman and perina patel were there and they're telling you a little bit about ifc it seems

00:38:06 about ifc it seems and then uh there's a heading fire safety act 2005 regulatory reform order and then a little bit lower down than that you can see it says adb

00:38:18 that you can see it says adb guidance only can be quotes interpreted close quotes if you know what you are talking about do you recall that being said or words to that effect

00:38:30 no you don't know who might have said the adb was capable of being quote interpreted close quotes now i wouldn't i wouldn't recall was there any discussion

00:38:41 there any discussion in general terms that you recall about adb being

00:38:45 adb being understood in a particular way that could be ambiguous or that the guidance could be circumvented in some way

00:38:53 way no not that i recall now or that it was soft guidance and further down on the right hand side you can see just a little bit down it says

00:39:02 says fr 5000 rename do you remember whether it was you or rob warren who said that

00:39:11 i don't know i don't i don't know whether this was the meeting with ifc that i was at so i can't say it was me you can't help no it is right though isn't it that fr 5000 was going to be renamed

00:39:23 5000 was going to be renamed and indian ended up having the brand name rs 5000. yes it's quite clear that it was never going to be a new product no no now let's go to ceo50670

00:39:42 no no now let's go to ceo50670 uh this is an email from you to joe mahoney copy to jonathan roper on the 27th of august 2013 as we can see there and it says still awaiting green light from fire consultant the fr range will

00:39:53 from fire consultant the fr range will have a good chance of passing the test what we have paid the 1000 pounds so far for

00:39:58 for once we have this confirmation we will begin designing the test rig and overall system and book the rig with bre at this point we will need to pay for the main test best estimate as it sits today

00:40:08 today is that this will be an october spend with tests sometime in november john will provide more detail when he returns from holidays we commencing 9th september now

00:40:21 that was the ambition at that stage and you were going to joe mahoney because he held the purse strings for the test for the budget for the test is that is that right yes joe mahoney held the budget for all

00:40:34 yes joe mahoney held the budget for all uk and product approvals and testing right now do you remember just moving forward a little bit further into the year that in early october jonathan roper and jamie hayes

00:40:46 october jonathan roper and jamie hayes attended a meeting with ifc and soteg from what i've reviewed as part of my statement than yes i recall but you have no independent recollection of that i've told about it i do remember them

00:40:57 i've told about it i do remember them going um to that meeting yes let's see the note of the meeting

00:41:03 cel40194 please this is an uh email from jamie hayes to rob warren and you attaching the note of the summary of

00:41:15 attaching the note of the summary of their meeting with sodatech on thursday that was the week before this email was the 7th of october the meeting was on the third

00:41:24 the third and we and so you you did definitely see this note

00:41:28 this note looking at this email yes i believe so yes let's look at the note it's at cel401195

00:41:43 and this is uh john roper's note of the meeting and it's entitled above me 80 meters

00:41:56 and it's entitled above me 80 meters fire test ifc and sotech meeting peter lee third of october 2013 summary present john egenton sotech david cooper ifc

00:42:04 ifc john roper and jamie hayes both from celetex

00:42:08 celetex and you could see that the first bullet point down under fire test is very problematic to pass kingspan failed twice with standard cavity barriers and then you look a little bit lower

00:42:19 and then you look a little bit lower down and it says john at sotek skeptical about pass with decorative cladding and then still no idea how kingsman support the the use of decorative clouding as their

00:42:30 the use of decorative clouding as their fire test is used as a non-combustible cladding

00:42:33 cladding and then very unlikely to pass on the basis that celetex fr 5000 is slightly better than phenolic according to ifc testing possible idea to design double cavity barrier

00:42:44 to design double cavity barrier now just looking at that first what did you understand when you read this note uh was meant by a decorative cladding panel [Music]

00:42:54 [Music] i don't believe i would have known what a decorative cladding panel was right it's not it's not a term i've i'd heard or

00:43:01 heard or have have heard since decorating i mean looking at this note and the parts that i've read to you overall the impression that it gives is is that this was not very encouraging feedback

00:43:11 feedback for the prospects of fr 5000 passing a bs 8414 test

00:43:18 is that fair uh yes and also raising the cr the question about how

00:43:24 about how it could be that kingspan had passed an eight four one four test uh for k-15

00:43:34 yes yeah based on the first bullet yes based on the first bullet and also question about how kingspan could support the use of decorative cladding given that the test that they did pass

00:43:46 given that the test that they did pass used a non-combustible cladding is that also affair sorry can you say that again yes um that the note told you that those at the meeting were still puzzled as to

00:43:57 at the meeting were still puzzled as to how kingspan could you advertise or push a k15 for use with a decorative cladding in a cladding system given that fire test had used a non-combustible cladding

00:44:09 test had used a non-combustible cladding yes yes so discouraging and two mysteries about kingspan

00:44:15 kingspan would be the summary is that fair yes as part of the general scoping of the market and the research that john was doing with with jamie's support yes yep yes now can we go to your witness

00:44:27 yep yes now can we go to your witness statement please page 21 and go to paragraph 71

00:44:35 i'd like to look at the whole paragraph with you i do not now recall reading this note on my reaction to it at the time and i do not know which of the attendees at this meeting would have made each of the comments noted above save with a comment makes it clear as i

00:44:47 save with a comment makes it clear as i noted at paragraph 60 above i believe i appreciated at the time and indeed before receiving this note but not all systems incorporating our fr 5000 were likely to pass bs 8414 at this stage we were still trying to

00:44:58 at this stage we were still trying to gather as much information as possible so that a decision could be taken by the business on whether to proceed with the test and if so with what system i also think the fact that a system incorporating k-15 had passed this test

00:45:10 incorporating k-15 had passed this test and was being regularly specified apparently without negative feedback within the market encouraged me that our goal was achievable by this i mean nothing negative was being fed to us by our customers or members of our sales teams

00:45:22 members of our sales teams as k-15 was our benchmark and so far as i was concerned there was very little product to product difference this gave me confidence pir could be a viable market solution now i'll show you that

00:45:34 market solution now i'll show you that i have some questions about that you've already agreed that the k-15 test which you understood used the cement particle board was wholly unrepresentative of what was actually used in the market

00:45:45 actually used in the market that's right isn't it sorry when did i say do you agree that the k-15 let me try it a different way do you agree that the k-15 test which you could see from

00:45:56 the k-15 test which you could see from the note had used a cement particle board

00:45:58 board was highly unrepresentative of a board or panel for rain screen that was being used in the market i wouldn't know it was wholly

00:46:09 i wouldn't know it was wholly unrepresentative on the basis that there was other i knew that things like um field of application might be able to interpret

00:46:20 application might be able to interpret data and wasn't really looking at that particular cladding type well let me try it a different way in your experience thus far this is late 2013 have you come across any

00:46:33 late 2013 have you come across any cladding

00:46:34 cladding systems which had used cement particle board as the rain screen no but i wouldn't also be aware of what

00:46:46 no but i wouldn't also be aware of what other types of cladding system were available

00:46:48 available either no but never mind about that i i'm just asking you to address my specific question which is given that kingspan used a cement particle board

00:46:59 cement particle board as the rainscreen panel in their bs8414 test

00:47:03 test uh did it not strike you at the time that the use of that material as a rain screen panel was completely unrepresentative of the norm for rain screen systems

00:47:16 yeah yes i would say it seems based on the information that was provided that it was

00:47:22 it was it was not it was not common yeah and as a product manager you must have had some idea about what was common in the market no because in my role in as as product manager

00:47:33 manager i got very very little um didn't get involved at all with with rain screen cladding as an application at all events you didn't want to use a cement particle board in your test

00:47:46 cement particle board in your test is that right certainly throughout this time frame of the market being scoped i didn't want to um didn't want to do what kingspan were

00:47:58 um didn't want to do what kingspan were looking like they were doing and why was that

00:48:01 that i wanted us to be to have a a more credible solution more credible in what way um that the

00:48:13 um that the to to use that those words more representative more representative or more a more typical green screen cladding panel yes so not semantical cement particle

00:48:24 yes so not semantical cement particle ball but something that would be more often used by people who built rain screen systems yes yes now this note of the meeting i've shown you with satech and ifc explicitly told you that the prospects of passing the test

00:48:36 that the prospects of passing the test using a decorative panel were not good and by decorative panel mr roper told us yesterday that that meant uh something and i'm paraphrasing his evidence that looked nice on the outside

00:48:49 evidence that looked nice on the outside right and he he expressly excluded from that a mali eternity natura panel which he said was a decorative panel of sorts but did you understand what was meant by decorative no

00:49:01 decorative no did you make it did you ask no

00:49:07 this this note and we can get back to it if need be it also informed you that some form of enhanced cavity barrier would be necessary

00:49:16 necessary in order for a system using a decorative panel to pass do you remember that we can go back to it if you like i remember just seeing it a second ago yes yes yes in the light of that why were you at all encouraged that the goal was

00:49:27 all encouraged that the goal was achievable as you say

00:49:33 at the time and based on what i can recall at the time our benchmark was was the k-15 product therefore there must have been um

00:49:44 therefore there must have been um ways in which that that product was allowed to be specified and and installed on on buildings but what you were told was that k15 had passed

00:49:54 passed a test and was therefore being used because it only because it had passed a test using a cement particle board as a rain screen cladding

00:50:01 cladding and you said that that wasn't representative and you wanted to be more representative my question is what was the source or basis of your optimism given that you wanted to be more representative of the market than kingspan

00:50:15 i i don't recall sorry and i'm trying to get to the bottom of your reasoning here in paragraph 71. on what basis did you think that a bs

00:50:26 on what basis did you think that a bs 8414

00:50:27 8414 test of

00:50:31 test of rs 5000 as it became was was likely to be successful given that king spanned eddie passed that test using an unrepresentative cladding

00:50:47 so yeah sorry i don't i don't right i don't know can't recall my thinking at the time

00:50:53 the time well you you've done enough in your paragraph 71 to to tell us about what your thinking was at the time

00:51:03 but now you're not sitting there able to explain my thinking at the time was that the

00:51:07 the k-15 product was was on the market and therefore there must be

00:51:13 other other ways in which the product would be allowed to be to be used

00:51:20 but you didn't know what those were no so far as you could see no but this is generally where it was part of a a market scoping an understanding exercise

00:51:34 so when you say i also think the fact that a system incorporating k-15 had passed this test and was regularly being specified apparently without negative feedback within the market encouraged me that our goal was achievable do you really mean there that the fact

00:51:46 do you really mean there that the fact that k-15 had somehow got away with it meant that you might also be able to get away with it was that your thinking i wouldn't say get i would say get away with it the product was being

00:51:57 with it the product was being used and my thinking at the time was certainly a product level is why why can kingspan's k15 be used and celetex's frs-5000 product which has

00:52:10 and celetex's frs-5000 product which has very similar properties can't be used

00:52:17 and the fact that you had no answer to that question led you to be encouraged that that you might be able to launch fr 5000 as a an above 80 meter product

00:52:25 product well i think it was more based on

00:52:29 getting feedback from from the from the market as well did you think at the time that

00:52:38 a a test of a cladding system incorporating any cladding panels other than a cement particle board would have any chance of succeeding sorry can you repeat that did you think

00:52:49 sorry can you repeat that did you think yes did you think at the time that a test

00:52:51 test a bs8414 test of a cladding system incorporating any cladding panels other than a cement particle board as k-15 had done

00:53:00 done would have any chance of succeeding i don't recall what other cladding panels were being talked about or thought about well you could see from the satech meeting that decorative panels were

00:53:12 meeting that decorative panels were being discounted to that that marked them out you didn't want to go to cement particle route because it wasn't representative what what was the basis for you being optimistic

00:53:23 optimistic that if you were going to to sell rs 5000 as it became for use with a representative system or range of systems what was the basis for your being optimistic uh the rs 5000 would pass

00:53:36 optimistic uh the rs 5000 would pass such a test

00:53:40 only the fact that k-15 was being was being used as well but you didn't know how no can we move on uh let's go to cel 50716.

00:53:53 can we move on uh let's go to cel 50716. now this is a long email which john roper sent to you on the 1st of november 2013.

00:53:59 2013. and as i did with him i'd like to spend a little bit of time with you on this document we know you received it because you responded and i'll show you your response

00:54:10 response shortly uh are you familiar with this document

00:54:16 document uh i'm familiar with it since being it being presented to me well were you familiar with it at the time having reviewed it i again having reviewed it as part of

00:54:28 i again having reviewed it as part of this process i can see that i was on holiday at the time so when i replied i replied relatively quickly to john from when he sent it to me so i would i would have read it but i wouldn't have

00:54:39 i would have read it but i wouldn't have given it a huge amount of time all right well let's just uh go to page two of this email run to see what it was that gave rise to his email to you of the 1st of november um there's a there's an email trail as

00:54:51 um there's a there's an email trail as always

00:54:52 always with these things uh which starts at the bottom of page two with discussion about a tp branch is that a travis perkins branch

00:55:01 branch yes yeah and then moving up the page uh a third of the way down 31st of october he he emails you standard tp margin

00:55:12 he he emails you standard tp margin usually about 25 and then ps need to catch up on the above 18 meters when back we'll send an invite to you rwcc and jh

00:55:20 and jh for an update on project in a position where decisions need to be made catch up monday

00:55:25 monday enjoy the rest of your week off now rw's rob warren cc is craig chambers and jh is jamie hayes in that list isn't it yes yes yes so you could see from that that

00:55:38 yes yes so you could see from that that at least craig chambers was involved or was proposed to be involved

00:55:42 involved for an update is that right yes yeah and then you go back to him same day thanks decent margin and then seen the invite for monday so good to get that discussion going on a

00:55:53 good to get that discussion going on a great way forward is it good news and that's the question to which he responds

00:56:00 responds let's turn the page and he starts well dot dot dot so you could see from that little introduction that it wasn't good

00:56:12 little introduction that it wasn't good news

00:56:14 news and he goes on to explain in great detail with great thoroughness what he had found now i know you've read this email recently as part of preparations to give evidence

00:56:26 preparations to give evidence and so i'm going to assume you're familiar with it um so i'll take it as quickly as i can but he he says uh that there are two possible solutions for testing in which both david and ifc and i have

00:56:38 in which both david and ifc and i have confidence in you see that yes and he goes on to explain what those those are and he says in the second paragraph that

00:56:51 he says in the second paragraph that after much research he doesn't think that

00:56:53 that testing worst case scenario with an improved fire barrier which is what he's talking about is possible and i don't believe kingspan have a similar report and that report there and i think i'm

00:57:04 and that report there and i think i'm summarizing probably a little bit disjointedly that the fact that he's discounting a field of application report is that is that how you read it

00:57:19 yes on the basis of the assessment report which he references in paragraph one

00:57:24 one yes and then he goes on to say we cannot seem to find or design a suitable barrier in which we have enough confidence that it can be used behind a standard acm panel which we will know we know will melt and

00:57:35 which we will know we know will melt and allow fire into the cavity but just pausing there he told us that he got that information from sotech because they told him that essentially in the june of 2013. but he's assuming

00:57:46 in the june of 2013. but he's assuming that you know what an acm panel is did you know

00:57:48 you know at that stage what an acm panel was i don't believe so no not in terms of what it

00:57:52 it meant we don't see you going back to him and saying sorry john what's an acm panel

00:57:56 panel do we no

00:58:00 do we no um what i did do is on the basis that this seems to be the conclusion of his months of market scoping is why i'm then suggesting that he gets this meeting together with

00:58:11 he gets this meeting together with um the managing director myself and and the really the the two main technical people in the in the business yes my question really is when he mentioned standard acn panel did you

00:58:22 mentioned standard acn panel did you know what he was talking about

00:58:26 i can't recall at the time whether i'd have known exactly what a standard acm panel meant now okay he goes on speaking to simcoe on wednesday in birmingham with il that's ian laffrey yes he confirmed that architects will

00:58:37 yes he confirmed that architects will specify k-15 with a standard fire barrier and panel when the work is contracted and then subcontracted to cladding contractors such as simcoe h.a mark stanmore etc they value engineer that system to be competitive

00:58:48 engineer that system to be competitive at tender

00:58:49 at tender this means changing fire barriers changing panels the architect's only guarantee is the k-15 will be used because there is no alterna no other alternative available

00:59:00 now just pausing there was he telling you something you already knew or were you educated by his findings here

00:59:11 i think i was being educated right and then he goes on uh we're just pausing that you were aware

00:59:19 aware from that i think was weren't you that even before any testing had been carried out

00:59:24 out fr 5000 or rs 5000 as it became couldn't be used in conjunction with acm [Music]

00:59:31 [Music] i i don't know whether i well based on what i've been told in in uh previous reports that john had put together then then yes yes fine uh he then goes on an

00:59:42 then yes yes fine uh he then goes on an architect will be told that k-15 is applicable for above 18 meters in accordance with adb and and that suffices from their perspective kingspan have done a great job at the spec

00:59:52 spec end 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

01:00:01 although they are liable for what goes 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

01:00:12 18 meters is the building control officer kingspan i would suggest do not have a piece of paper that states that they can specifically be used behind any cladding panel what they have done is got a bba certification stating the fire

01:00:24 got a bba certification stating the fire test method and taken 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

01:00:35 and complies with adb through passing br 135

01:00:37 135 a building control officer is unlikely to challenge a document that is approved from the head of building control now that's uh an important paragraph

01:00:48 that's uh an important paragraph d do you accept that what did you understand him to be saying that contractors don't have or didn't have enough knowledge to challenge the inappropriate use

01:00:58 use of insulation products above 18 meters i don't believe i had enough knowledge of the contractors in that market to know whether they knew that or not i think our understanding in in

01:01:09 or not i think our understanding in in celitex was that contractors would have suitable knowledge of different cladding materials well mr roper is reporting back to you the products of his labor

01:01:21 products of his labor and this is what he has found out i'm asking you about what you understood from this email do you did you understand him to be telling you that contractors did not have enough knowledge of the of

01:01:33 did not have enough knowledge of the of the guidance to challenge the inappropriate use of products above 18 meters that's what he was it appears to be telling you at the time i wouldn't have given it that level of thought because as i said

01:01:45 that level of thought because as i said i i read this and replied to him i believe within half an hour of him sending this email at a time when i was on holiday so i don't believe i would have been giving it the that level of detail or attention right did you not pick up from

01:01:57 did you not pick up from this paragraph that mr roper was telling you

01:02:00 you uh that that k-15 had been able to market

01:02:05 market cool thumb k-15 kingspan had been able to market cool firm k-15 by getting a bba certification getting an

01:02:13 an lab an lab registration and then using that to get past building control offices without challenge

01:02:20 challenge that was the route did you not pick that up as i said i don't think i picked any of the main detail other than just to say to john that it looks like he scopes

01:02:31 looks like he scopes his understanding into and to get a meeting together of of people on right when i'm back right uh

01:02:39 uh it sounds as if me asking you questions about this document maybe of diminishing returns but let's see how we go he goes on what does all this mean for us system approval limits us hugely as the market is so fragmented and it's extremely

01:02:51 is so fragmented and it's extremely difficult to grasp who is being most commonly used the likes of mali luca bond trespass spec a lot but value engineered out for standard aluminium panels

01:03:00 panels just pausing there what he was telling you there was that news to you or was was that something you were already new i think a lot of this is reading it again

01:03:11 again a lot of this is is news to me is news to you but was news to you at the time i don't recall what i was thinking at the time trying to do the right thing requires a complete re-education of the market and this would require a huge

01:03:22 market and this would require a huge campaign

01:03:23 campaign and probably a lawsuit two options proposed below and then he sets them out test a standard a2 panel a limited combustible panel of which there are a few a luca bond a2 marley

01:03:35 there are a few a luca bond a2 marley attorney with a standard fire barrier system

01:03:37 system if challenged on what system to use we can happily state that our test used an a2 panel with a particular commonly used fire barrier still not 100 confident of passing as a2 is a euro class classification derived from test data on reaction to

01:03:49 derived from test data on reaction to fire testing and just pausing there that was an option which would at least be testing a a panel which was standard in the market yes a commonly used

01:04:04 in the market yes a commonly used panel

01:04:07 sounds like it's that yeah i guess right uh but the problem with that is that because it was a2 it was a euro class definite definition and therefore not the same as the uk

01:04:19 and therefore not the same as the uk limited combustibility uh or or surface spread of flame panels um classifications and then the second option was opt for the kingspan route and put a cement particle board as the cladding

01:04:31 particle board as the cladding use a standard fire barrier good chance of passing knowing they have and cp board is good in terms of resistance to fire

01:04:42 now did you read both of those options as

01:04:46 an alternative to doing the right thing no i don't believe so you see he said trying to do the right thing requires a

01:04:57 trying to do the right thing requires a complete re-education of the market and this would require a huge campaign and probably a lawsuit but those neither of those are the options that he then sets out

01:05:04 sets out i think what he's saying there based on the report that he's put in before is about what kingspan are doing and i think there's he's then saying that the market is a place of of where

01:05:15 the market is a place of of where kingspan has taken the education of that market and thus challenging it would um yeah it would be you know a potentially difficult exercise

01:05:26 exercise uh potentially difficult exercise re-education and a potential lawsuit did you agree with him that re-educating the market would require a huge campaign and probably a lawsuit

01:05:36 lawsuit at the suit of kingspan as he told us yesterday i think there's there's every chance that yes that would have happened

01:05:52 so given that trying to do the right thing was almost impossible the only option options here were those you set out either a test with an a2 panel with the

01:06:03 either a test with an a2 panel with the downsides that involved or going the kingspan route that's what he's saying is that how you saw it that's how it yes that's how it looks there

01:06:13 there and then he goes on to say after those options however what we do need to consider

01:06:18 consider is if we have two potential systems that could pass how do these dictate route to market

01:06:22 market what does an asm stroke ctc state to somebody who inquires and those are are groups within celetex aren't they an area salesman yes there is something

01:06:33 an area salesman yes there is something technical

01:06:34 technical if we simply have the test report we don't want to have to provide this as evidence

01:06:38 evidence and then he asks this question series of questions do we in fact need to spend 25 to 30 000 pounds for a bb-8 to be able to gain this document from nabc which in my mind gives us very little chance of being challenged from

01:06:49 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 shouldn't be used

01:07:00 realistically shouldn't be used behind most cladding panels because in the event of a fire it would burn

01:07:07 now there's a three rhetorical questions in your mind at the time did you have an answer to them or any of them no did you ever come to address your mind to those questions

01:07:19 to those questions so as to give yourself an answer to them well i think the fact that there's some major questions there that need to be asked would be the main reason why my response was to put um a meeting together to to talk

01:07:31 to put um a meeting together to to talk this through he then goes on what kingspan have done extremely well is to save very little but build confidence if challenged by having a far having fire barrier manufacturers all showing tested k15 achieve bba

01:07:43 showing tested k15 achieve bba validation and subsequently gain labc approval there is always the chance they do have the piece of paper in the top draw from somebody that states for use with any system but i doubt it

01:07:58 now in reality what he's telling you is that we are you i'd have to play in this market which has been skewed by k-15 or not enter the above 18 meter market at all

01:08:09 at all that is a blunt summary of what he's telling you isn't it

01:08:14 yes yeah and you knew that at the time yes

01:08:19 i knew the market was a different and challenging market for us which is why i wanted to

01:08:25 wanted to get the meeting together to decide what the next steps were and it was challenging by now i think you must have realized because kingspan occupied it almost exclusively by reason

01:08:36 occupied it almost exclusively by reason of having some certification documents based upon a test that nobody could understand

01:08:44 yes yes and that you had your strong suspicions about yes yes and we can see your response cell 50718

01:09:03 and you say to him and it's the same day

01:09:11 about 40 minutes after he sends it to you

01:09:14 you great summary and shows the real merit of good research and talking to the market

01:09:18 market we are trying not to create a me too here but if we do it will be for the right reasons [Applause] and then you go on to say i suggest you put the whole 80 meter story into some

01:09:29 put the whole 80 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 there in case you need to draw anything up we can then discuss how we go forward

01:09:40 then you say for me excuse me and then you 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

01:09:51 or more competitive advantage than doing it this way delivers i'm not sure we'll have that but let's discuss and also get the view of others please also invite joe or speak to him when he's back on monday it's his budget and he should also have a say on whether this happens i'm

01:10:02 a say on whether this happens i'm assuming that's jay mahoney yes yes now um just going a little bit uh out of that document i want to show you your statement because you say what you say you meant

01:10:13 because you say what you say you meant in it page 25 paragraph 82

01:10:20 you're referring that to the first part of that email you say in noting we are

01:10:26 are trying not to create a me too here but if we do it will be for the right reasons i meant that in my mind celetech should not go down the same testing route as kingspan i.e we should test a system that was

01:10:37 i.e we should test a system that was more representative of what was actually being used in the market and also we should be clearer in our marketing literature about what we had tested

01:10:46 tested so what were the right reasons

01:10:56 i don't know exactly what i know what i mean by the me too in terms of the replication of kingspan but if if we do but if we do it it will be for

01:11:05 for the right reasons i don't recall what we were thinking those reasons were as i said i replied to john's email very very quickly well you've replied after 40 minutes and perhaps i'm wrong but

01:11:17 40 minutes and perhaps i'm wrong but you had at least read and digested what he said before going back to him well i was on holiday at the time so i don't know whether i read it as soon as it came through well you would have read it within the 40 minutes after you before you

01:11:28 40 minutes after you before you responded to him would you want to go back and look at the timings yes okay let's go back to the email itself uh if we can which is at cel50718

01:11:40 uh if we can which is at cel50718 you can see halfway down page one on the screen there that it's sent to you from jonathan rapper at 9 57 on the 1st of november and at the top of

01:11:51 on the 1st of november and at the top of the page

01:11:52 the page you respond to him on the same morning at 10 32

01:11:57 at 10 32 so that's 40 minutes almost exactly

01:12:02 so do i take it from that that you had received his email and allowing for some time for your smartphone to go ping open it up and look at it you've at least read it

01:12:13 look at it you've at least read it before going back to him yes i would have read it what i'm saying is i don't know whether i read it at 10 25 or at 10 o'clock so in terms of that response no it doesn't matter

01:12:25 response no it doesn't matter when you read it my question simply is that having responded to him in the way that you have you at least took the trouble to read it digest it and understand it before you responded

01:12:36 responded that's all i'm putting to you i'm not sure i digested it and understood it

01:12:42 but did you go back to it later and sit and read it thoroughly i don't know

01:12:50 know i think the fact that all right well we're we're getting slightly diverted what i really want to ask you about is although you've told us in your statement what you meant by trying not to create a me too here you haven't addressed the if we do it

01:13:02 you haven't addressed the if we do it will be for the right reasons and i want to know what the right reasons were i don't i don't recall what i mean by the right reasons in the end we know and then cutting a long story short that celetex neither tested a representative system

01:13:14 neither tested a representative system nor was truthful in its literature about what it actually tested was it based on the marketing and the information i had the detail of the system was what i believed

01:13:25 detail of the system was what i believed had been tested right well we'll come to that so you don't you don't accept what i've just put to you is that right i don't accept that the knowledge i had at the time that the well what i knew what i believed had

01:13:36 well what i knew what i believed had been tested was what was written in the um

01:13:38 um in the in the marketing literature right i'm saying that you're trying not to create a me too here did that really involve you rejecting option two that mr roper was putting

01:13:49 option two that mr roper was putting forward

01:13:50 forward namely opt for the kingspan route and put a cement particle board as the cladding

01:13:56 i think what i'm just saying there is if we can we don't want to try and replicate how kingspan have have done it right and then you say as i've shown you in

01:14:07 and then you say as i've shown you in the third paragraph you say 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 it this way delivers

01:14:18 that doing it this way delivers what what's the other system passing means

01:14:21 means does that mean the k-15 system or or what system yeah as i've said in my statement i don't know what i mean by those by those sets of words

01:14:31 of words right

01:14:37 does this mean that even if you were less confident in the system that you were going to test would pass you would need to have equal of opposite confidence that you'd gain a competitive advantage if it did

01:14:53 as i said i don't sit in here and have him reflected on them even when i was putting my statement together i don't understand or know what i've meant by that statement right

01:15:05 in a nutshell were you trying to say and i'll just

01:15:08 i'll just have one more go here that it was only worth avoiding the kingspan route if there was sufficient competitive advantage to doing so

01:15:18 i don't know i don't know i'm sorry i don't know all right now there was then a decision to test and you say in your statement that decision was taken in late 2013

01:15:30 that decision was taken in late 2013 it's paragraph 77 and you say that that decision was taken at a meeting on the 4th of november 2013 which mr roper mr hayes mr warren and mr chambers were present

01:15:41 chambers were present that's what you said you remember that yes yes and it that decision to have that meeting was made following the email that we've just been looking at the email exchange i've just been showing you yes

01:15:52 showing you yes yes that's what i've asked john to do is set the meeting up i'm going to show you some slides for that meeting uh mr chairman is that a convenient moment for the office i was just thinking it might be yes so um we'll take a break at this

01:16:04 yes so um we'll take a break at this point

01:16:05 point mr ellens we'll come back at 25 to 4 please

01:16:10 please okay and again while you're out of the room please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it all right well you'd like to give the usher thank you

01:16:28 thank you 25 to 4. thank you

01:35:02 yes would you ask me to evans to come in

01:35:19 how are you doing for water there mr i'm fine thank you good enough yes thank you

01:35:26 right ready to carry on i am thank you thank you yes mr villain thank you mr chairman

01:35:30 chairman mr evans can i ask you to look please at

01:35:35 ceo23011199

01:35:40 uh these are the slides that you asked mr roper to produce for the 4th of november meeting are they not yes and can we look at slide

01:35:51 yes and can we look at slide 14 please on page 14. this set up five options certex options and you can see them there are these the alternative routes that you considered that celetex might follow

01:36:06 i think they're the yes they're the options from the meeting based on on john's research and the first is worst case scenario with field of application report what did you understand he meant by

01:36:17 what did you understand he meant by worst case scenario i think

01:36:23 not a not a great set set of words but i think what he's saying there is to test to

01:36:27 to a um

01:36:30 a um test as a a set of um like a system put a steel frame or sorry a frame together and then have a um have an expert that's able to assess what was designed to see

01:36:42 able to assess what was designed to see whether it would cover other types of cladding system right and did you understand that it was a worst case scenario because obtaining a field of application report was the least likely

01:36:52 likely no i don't believe so i've seen field of application reports used in in other in other applications right so what was worst case scenario about it then

01:37:06 about it then probably the i don't know exactly but just a

01:37:10 just a um a system that then would allow results to be taken from that to say that it would also be okay to be used in in these in these other applications or on these other systems and then second

01:37:22 other systems and then second item down or option down system route limit scope requires re-education what did you understand by that

01:37:31 i think at the time that was more about going down [Music]

01:37:37 a specific system that didn't allow any level of um field of application report to come from it requires re-education what did you understand by that i think that's in

01:37:48 understand by that i think that's in relation to the previous comments where we would have to explain to the market a lot about

01:37:52 lot about how we saw the market right and how you saw the market being what exactly

01:38:00 exactly how the market with with kingspan as the as the

01:38:03 as the only player in that market um were working

01:38:07 working does that mean linking this with the email we've been looking at of the first of november from mr roper does that mean re-educating the market to teach them that they had been up to this

01:38:19 teach them that they had been up to this point misunderstanding the meaning and scope of bsa414 tests and the br 135 criteria by allowing kingspan k15 onto a wider set of

01:38:31 kingspan k15 onto a wider set of applications than that which was tested yes i think that's what it means right and that was risky because that might invite a lawsuit from kingspan among other things

01:38:42 things quite possibly now uh

01:38:47 the third options test and launch without bb a labc test and launch with bba and nabc opt out of 18

01:38:54 out of 18 meters at the at the meeting do you remember discussing opting out of 18 meters opting out of above 18 meters i think on the basis that that was put as a bullet point on a number of slides

01:39:06 as a bullet point on a number of slides it would have been mentioned yes was there any discussion about whether or not in fact what celetech should be doing is not going anywhere near the above 18 meter market

01:39:17 anywhere near the above 18 meter market i don't recall that being part of the conversation so although any detail although this was listed on this slide as an option in fact did you was the decision taken at this meeting that that was not an option

01:39:30 at that time i don't believe opting out of above 18 meters was where we were going to go until we had um

01:39:36 had um looked at doing some testing right so it remained an option depending on the test i believe so yes until we launched the product into the market opting out was always an

01:39:47 into the market opting out was always an option

01:39:48 option i i follow now uh can we go to the next slide 15 please that seems to set out

01:40:01 three outcomes

01:40:06 uh acm panel with approve improved barrier system less than 50 percent a2 panel with standard barrier 80 cement particle with standard barrier 90

01:40:17 cement particle with standard barrier 90 was there any discussion any discussion of that slide again on the bases that have been put together it would be strange if it wasn't discussed i don't recall the specific discussions around each of

01:40:28 the specific discussions around each of those three options but i can't believe that that wouldn't have been discussed as part of the meeting did you all come to the view that there was a less than 50 chance that success would be possible using an acm

01:40:40 using an acm panel i believe they approved barrier system i believe they were a um the the probabilities were put together by by john based on his understanding of the market i don't

01:40:52 understanding of the market i don't believe we talked about the percentages right was there any disagreement at the meeting about those percentages not i can recall using a cement particle board as kingspan had done would give you a 90

01:41:02 you a 90 chance of success as we can see wouldn't it that's what that's saying yes was there any discussion of going down that route at the meeting

01:41:12 [Applause] i i don't recall

01:41:23 now following this meeting celestex decided to adopt the option of testing in a system using a2 cladding didn't it yes and

01:41:32 yes and in his statement but let's look at it uh mr roper's statement at cel301052 page 10 please he says something about this meeting at

01:41:45 he says something about this meeting at paragraph 5.14

01:41:49 he says he wasn't present at the meeting

01:41:57 but in fact he corrected that yesterday in his evidence and said that he was to to the best of your recollection is he right about that my understanding is that john was there because he

01:42:08 because he he was asked to set the meeting up he was asked to prepare the slides therefore there would be no reason why john wouldn't have come to the meeting having prepared the slides that just wouldn't have happened no did he present the slides do you remember

01:42:21 as certain as i can be he would have done i don't believe anybody else would have presented this right and then in paragraph 5.14 he says

01:42:33 i was aware that rob and paul expressed their views at this meeting

01:42:39 these these were not entirely aligned prior to this meeting i was already aware that rob was clear in his views the bs8414 was a system test and that the test

01:42:50 was a system test and that the test report relating to a successful test was only applicable to that particular system just pausing there were you aware before the meeting that those were rob warren's views

01:43:01 not that i recall and i don't believe rob and i had um particularly differing views on the importance of having a system that we communicated as it being a system and then it goes on craig chambers and

01:43:14 and then it goes on craig chambers and paul that's you were aware that kingspan was selling successfully on the basis of one bs 8414 test

01:43:20 test as to which it provided only limited information to the market and the kingsplan 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

01:43:31 adopting rob's interpretation would limit sales and would not be a reflection of market dynamics is that correct was that your view no that wasn't my view was that if we were to go with this market we should be very clear that we've tested in a particular

01:43:43 clear that we've tested in a particular way

01:43:44 way to a particular system people might want to take those results and make the decision that based on that the product can also be used in a different system but i don't believe um i don't believe

01:43:58 but i don't believe um i don't believe that mine and craig's view was entirely different to robs now right you see mr reaper room remembers it differently okay and that uh rob warren

01:44:11 okay and that uh rob warren and he in his own mind were taking what he called the technical approach namely paying strict adherence to the limits

01:44:19 limits of the bsa414 test as a system test and that you and mr chambers were taking a more commercial view uh which wouldn't limit sales is that a fair description of the vision

01:44:32 is that a fair description of the vision of views it's a little bit confused because

01:44:33 because my my interpretation seems to be similar to robs which is there's a test which we've carried out and we will be um open with how we've tested and trying to communicate better

01:44:44 tested and trying to communicate better to the market that's how we that that's how we have tested naturally that would approach would have limited sales but i believe that anybody in the business and in that meeting would know it would limit sales

01:44:55 would know it would limit sales we weren't saying to go out and sell it into any cladding system that that you like

01:45:04 he says craig chambers and paul's viewers that adopting rob's interpretation that's an interpretation of the

01:45:10 of the bs 8414 test and one through br 135 criteria

01:45:14 criteria as is obvious from the context did you adopt or have a different interpretation from the one espoused by rob warren do you

01:45:28 think my view was almost seems the same as rob that's why i'm a little bit confused i don't know i can't understand from this from john's statement what rob's interpretation

01:45:39 rob's interpretation was that makes it different to mine i was

01:45:43 was i was clear that it was bs eight forward eight four one four was a system test and that we would make it clear in our marketing the system in which we had tested

01:45:51 tested right well let's see how that turns out um can we move forward then into february 2014 and the test itself now you say in your first statement paragraph 94 that you weren't involved

01:46:02 paragraph 94 that you weren't involved in the preparations for the first test is that right not that i can recall no now considering that mr roper reported to you are you sure

01:46:10 sure that's right yeah i think whilst john reported to me i'm confident that he would have all of that knowledge that he or expertise that he needed around the actual testing

01:46:21 actual testing he would have got from others be it rob be it jamie or or third parties he was using to

01:46:28 using to to do the test or the test house itself now

01:46:31 now considering that mr raper reported to you were there any aspects of the 2000 the february 2014 test that you weren't aware of um

01:46:42 not that i can recall no no now you weren't present at the test in february 2014 were you no but mr roper was wasn't he yeah mr

01:46:53 no but mr roper was wasn't he yeah mr roper was yes and he reported back to you

01:46:55 you following the test and he rang you uh yes so he would have i'm sure he would have wronged me to say whether it passed or vote and he rang you to tell you that it had failed didn't he

01:47:07 uh yes i think he did and he rang you from the car i think we we were told yesterday on his return from the watford fire hall yeah yes mr hayes said that there was a lot

01:47:18 yes mr hayes said that there was a lot of emotion around that call that's what he says in his statement because he was in the car at the time with mr mr roper do you remember that that conversation was an emotional one i wouldn't say it was

01:47:29 wouldn't say it was it was emotional i think there was um there would have been disappointment but i think that would have been something that would have been disappointing regardless of the application where we were a business that relied on doing

01:47:41 we were a business that relied on doing testing and a test not passing would have been met with some level of of disappointment um for a few reasons can we look at your

01:47:52 a few reasons can we look at your statement at page 28 please let's look at paragraph 97 together

01:47:57 you say that i was disappointed when i heard that the system had failed the test

01:48:01 test we had invested time and money and had not got the result we were hoping for the fact that the test had failed was there for a setback of course but it was not

01:48:08 not in my view a particularly significant one for celetex this was because the plan to develop rs 5000 was only one of a number of projects that celetex was pursuing at that time

01:48:19 that time is it really true mr evans given that without a pass you couldn't market rs 5000 above 18 meters at all

01:48:28 sorry can you say that again it was it really true that you weren't that it wasn't a significant setback given that without a pass of the bs-8414 test you couldn't market rs 5000 above

01:48:39 test you couldn't market rs 5000 above 18 meters at all no because we could discuss what the what the next steps were for that if we needed to and the the difference between a a business

01:48:52 the the difference between a a business pre-acquisition by saying about and post acquisition by saying ban is i was probably a little bit more aware that if we needed to there would be more money available for it so

01:49:02 it so doing a second test wouldn't have been

01:49:06 as much of a problem as maybe some people might have thought it might be well i understand that but it must have been a setback and a significant one i have to suggest to you given that without a bs 8414 test

01:49:18 to you given that without a bs 8414 test pass

01:49:18 pass you couldn't access the above 18 meter market at all yes it was it was a disappointment it was a setback but i can't remember it being a

01:49:26 being a a huge um problem for for the business it just meant that our launch of above 18 meters would need to

01:49:35 to be be delayed or well be delayed i would imagine well i don't you don't say that you actually say in the last sentence there that the reason it wasn't in your view a particularly significant setback for celetex was and i quote

01:49:47 for celetex was and i quote because the plan to develop rs 5000 was only one of a number of projects that celetex was pursuing at that time now the impression the reader gets from that is that uh it wasn't a significant setback

01:50:00 uh it wasn't a significant setback because the 18-meter market project wasn't was it was only one of a number of projects you're now saying something different i think

01:50:09 i yeah sorry um there was a number of projects that celetex was working on um and it was a setback and a disappointment but i don't think it was

01:50:21 disappointment but i don't think it was a major setback because there would have been an opportunity probably in my mind to know that if we wanted to we could go and go and test again if we needed to my point is you don't say that as the reason for your thinking at the time

01:50:32 reason for your thinking at the time here at paragraph 97 you've accorded a different reason which was the the rs 5000 was only one of a number of projects and now you're saying it wasn't a significant setback because

01:50:43 it wasn't a significant setback because you could have got more money for a later test which is it

01:50:49 i think it's i think it's a combination of of both things why haven't you made that clearer here i don't know

01:50:57 i mean why have i got to ask you questions about this that was my recollection when i put my

01:51:09 that was my recollection when i put my my statement together i mean the reality is that the fail meant that you would now have to work out how rs 5000 a project which had been on the stocks

01:51:21 a project which had been on the stocks since

01:51:21 since january 2013 could now pass a bsa414 test

01:51:27 test no yes we would need to look at how we would need to retest and you would have to arrange a new test yes and you'd have to wait for a new test

01:51:39 test yes and you'd have to get the budget for a new test

01:51:43 yes and had you told joe mahoney before february 2014 that this first one might not work and he might have to open the coffers for a second test uh i don't recall whether i told joe that at all no

01:51:55 that at all no and so given all those things that you would now have to do without any very clear view as to how to go about so passing a second test i have to suggest to you that it was a significant setback for celetex

01:52:06 significant setback for celetex and that the reason you've given the paragraph 97 is just wrong

01:52:12 no i wouldn't say i wouldn't say it was wrong as i recall the disappointment of failing of failing the first test was of course a disappointment for the people that have been working on the project and for the

01:52:24 been working on the project and for the business in terms of its plans but i don't think it significantly stopped

01:52:29 the process for that particular product as well as the other projects that we were working on i suggest you're down playing this aren't you doesn't

01:52:42 i can only go back based on the experience that i can remember from the time

01:52:46 time to help sorry i'm sorry to interrupt your vision can you just help me with this

01:52:50 this if i've understood your evidence correctly this test was intended to be a representative test in the choice of materials

01:53:00 materials yes and that was deliberate so that you could

01:53:04 could if it passed you could say to people we've tested it in a system which is representative of what is uh being actually used out there is that right yes once it had failed

01:53:17 is that right yes once it had failed what led you to believe that it could be modified in a way that would still be representative but likely to pass i don't know the i don't know the answer

01:53:29 i don't know the i don't know the answer to that or how i felt at the time about what that would be other than taking advice from people in the team as to how that could how could that could happen and without a pass

01:53:39 a pass you you were barred from the over 18 meter market yes so unless you could see some way through to getting a representative test that did pass

01:53:52 representative test that did pass you were a bit stuck yes we would have been

01:53:55 been yeah all right thank you very much

01:54:02 can you please turn to page 29 of your statement

01:54:12 at paragraph 102 there you say although i would have been consulted the decision on what to re-test would not have been mine because i did not have the technical knowledge or expertise to make that decision

01:54:23 make that decision the decision-making process would have involved mr ropa and mr warren and just pausing there why would mr roper

01:54:32 roper have had any technical knowledge or expertise

01:54:36 expertise someone who'd only left university the year before maybe 18 months before i think it's more based on the knowledge and expertise that he's built up working on this application

01:54:47 built up working on this application rather than his broader qualified technical knowledge is what i mean there are you really saying that he would have been a decision maker in your place in relation to the decision to retest i

01:54:58 in relation to the decision to retest i think he would have been able to recommend what um needed to happen and people in the business would have um would have listened to what he had to say

01:55:09 say maybe but you're not saying that he was a decision maker as opposed to a contributor to the information which would form the basis of that decision i think the decision about what we were

01:55:21 i think the decision about what we were going to do using that word there the deci the actual the making of the decision would have would have been come from

01:55:27 from come from john and and rob have him having that technical knowledge that you're not you're not saying that the uh the product manager that you line managed was going to be the ultimate

01:55:39 managed was going to be the ultimate decision maker and you not are you i don't think i would have been the ultimate decision maker either i wouldn't have been confident making that decision which is why i would have

01:55:50 decision which is why i would have taken that decision to be more of a a project approach similar to what i did back in november when i was getting everybody together to discuss john's research i didn't have that technical knowledge myself you were involved in

01:56:02 knowledge myself you were involved in the

01:56:02 the overall decision to retest weren't you uh yes i i would have supported a decision to to retest which is why you go on to say as for the overall decision to retest in addition

01:56:14 overall decision to retest in addition to me mr chambers would have been involved

01:56:16 involved so you've identified a number of people here but actually you were one of the ultimate decision makers about whether there should be a retest correct about to retest yes the

01:56:28 correct about to retest yes the technical intricacies of the of the testing then then no uh and you go on to say this would

01:56:35 would this was to be the first major product launch since sangoman's acquisition of celetex in 2012 so not only was he interested in being kept apprised of progress

01:56:47 kept apprised of progress that's mr chambers but the cost of the retest was such that it would have required consultation with him and approval by him now given that this was the first with the first product launch since the

01:56:58 with the first product launch since the sangaba acquisition and significant enough that the co ceo would have been involved in the decision to retest

01:57:06 to retest combined with the fact that celetex had been considering the above 18 meter market since 2012 and you didn't want any delay in the timetable this

01:57:17 timetable this i have to suggest to you was a major setback which would have required an important decision to be made by senior decision makers

01:57:28 i think when you piece all of that together i can see why you would say a major setback all i can say is what it felt like at the time and there wasn't

01:57:39 there wasn't it it didn't feel like it was the major the major setback now following the failed test you then sent mr raper a meeting invite for a meeting on the 18th of february

01:57:51 for a meeting on the 18th of february 2014

01:57:52 2014 i think i'll show you the document it's cel403072

01:58:03 there it is do you remember having a meeting uh with uh mr roper in your office on the 18th of february 2014. no i don't sorry the subject of the meeting is br135

01:58:15 the subject of the meeting is br135 given the proximity to the failed test presumably you discuss that with him can we can we take it from that or can you not i can't i can't agree sorry i can't um remember

01:58:26 i can't agree sorry i can't um remember whether

01:58:28 whether that meeting happened um so i can't answer that yes or no do you remember having a discussion whether in a meeting or otherwise with mr roper after the failed test about what would be required to pass the

01:58:41 about what would be required to pass the test

01:58:41 test next time around i'm sure there was some discussion whether it was with just myself and john or whether it was other people

01:58:48 people i don't know my understanding is that we decided to test a thicker cladding panel can we go to cel 3010154 please

01:59:00 and look at page 19. this is uh mr hayes witness statement again and i'd like to look with you please if i can at paragraphs 57 and 58 there they're quite long um but um what mr hayes says is that he

01:59:13 um but um what mr hayes says is that he was involved in meetings with you john roper and rob warren in which you started to draw conclusions about what caused the fire to spread to the top in the way that it did and that's what he says at the beginning of

01:59:24 that's what he says at the beginning of paragraph 58 do you remember those discussions i don't recall a meeting between myself john rob and jamie that that talked in that detail right you see he goes on in the

01:59:36 detail right you see he goes on in the second sentence in paragraph 58 to say i was involved in these meetings and discussions with jrp and rw you say you don't remember those i don't recall them now don't recall them no you don't say they didn't happen

01:59:47 them no you don't say they didn't happen i know i can't say they didn't happen but i don't recall them and at the end of paragraph 58 he says that collectively we were content with the remaining components of the rig including the use of rs5000

01:59:59 including the use of rs5000 which did not change from the first test to the second test do you recall any discussions at that time

02:00:06 time or perhaps later involving you about changing the components in the rig

02:00:14 my only recollection of a decision that was made from the first test to the second test was the changing of the thickness of the cladding panel well let's go on and see what he says on that score and other scores

02:00:25 that score and other scores over the page please and i'm going to read you paragraph 61 and 62 of his statement 61 he says on page 20. i therefore went to jrrw and pe

02:00:37 page 20. i therefore went to jrrw and pe with a suggestion that we also include an additional board of material behind the cladding just at the point of the fire barriers this in conjunction with the thicker cladding would increase the time it took for any

02:00:49 would increase the time it took for any fire to progress through the cladding and consequently climb the rig the board i suggested was a six millimeter magnesium oxide ball placed behind the cladding which he then defines as the additional

02:01:00 which he then defines as the additional material this would be used in conjunction with the now 12 millimeter thick

02:01:04 thick layer of the clatting jr and pe agreed to adopt this approach in principle with pe having the final sign-off however they also decided to amend the thickness of the cladding

02:01:15 thickness of the cladding at the point where the additional material was placed from 12 millimeters to eight millimeters thick to try and ensure continuity of the cladding surface across the rig we wanted to use six millimeter cladding

02:01:26 we wanted to use six millimeter cladding at the point where the six millimeter additional material was to be placed so that the two combined would be the same thickness as the twelve millimeter cladding across the rest of the rig unfortunately malia turn it was not sold in six

02:01:38 malia turn it was not sold in six millimeter thickness but only to eight millimeter or twelve millimeter as evidenced in the email correspondence sourcing the materials which he exhibits i've read that all to you

02:01:50 i've read that all to you do you recall that it was mr hayes who came up

02:01:54 came up with the idea of placing a six millimeter magnesium board behind the thickened cladding now the as i said the only recollection i have

02:02:05 as i said the only recollection i have of the change between the first test and the second test was the move to a thicker cladding panel well let's just go back to paragraph 62 and take it stage by stage and see exactly what it is

02:02:16 exactly what it is you do and don't recall can we go back a page please

02:02:24 now he says in the third line jr that's john roper yes and pe agreed to adopt this approach in principle with pe having the final sign-off now

02:02:35 sign-off now john roper recalls that what about you did you agree to adopt this approach in principle

02:02:44 principle no did you have the final sign-off no i wouldn't have had final sign-off i wouldn't have given myself final sign-off because of my compared to the other individuals involved in that test and the designing

02:02:55 involved in that test and the designing and their knowledge i wouldn't have been confident giving any technical off on the design of a new rig

02:03:01 rig well both mr roper and mr hayes recall the suggestion being made and you agreeing to it and having the final sign off

02:03:10 off are you saying that they're wrong in their recollection or simply that you simp you just don't recall one way i would say they're wrong because i know from everything that's happened from the launch of the product through to what's happened

02:03:22 to what's happened not one point in any of that did i know about a six mil magnesium oxide board until i found a reference to it on my phone

02:03:29 phone in november 2017. is that a fact yes you had no idea is it are you telling us you had no idea i didn't know the addition of the six millimeter magnesium board

02:03:41 millimeter magnesium board behind the eight millimeter as it turned out malia turned it natura on the on the rig

02:03:46 rig the only thing i knew was that that i recall was that we changed the thickness of the

02:03:50 of the cladding panel

02:03:53 you're sure about that yes so you're saying

02:03:57 saying no this isn't be careful here this isn't just that you can't recall one way or the other you're saying are you that both mr roper in his evidence yesterday and mr hayes in his evidence here at paragraph 62

02:04:08 here at paragraph 62 are false what i'm saying is that i didn't know that we had put a six ml magnesium oxide i know there's the nhbc discussion which i've seen in my evidence as well where information has been given to me and i haven't

02:04:21 been given to me and i haven't taken that information or understood that information for for whatever reason but i didn't know that what we were doing here um i didn't know that we were doing it

02:04:32 um i didn't know that we were doing it so just to be clear again i'm going to put this to you one more time are you saying that what john roper said yesterday

02:04:39 yesterday and what mr hayes is saying here about you agreeing to adopt this approach is false yes based on what i remember and what i recall i do not

02:04:50 and what i recall i do not give i did not know that we had put an extra

02:04:54 extra layer to um of magnesium oxide now you need to be very clear about the difference between saying you definitely didn't

02:05:01 didn't agree or you can't remember is this a failure of recollection on your part or are you saying are you saying let me finish the question that they are giving false evidence mr

02:05:12 that they are giving false evidence mr evans

02:05:14 evans i'm saying that i didn't know that that was that that had that had happened right now i'm going to take that as a as your evidence today that they are giving false evidence on this point

02:05:26 giving false evidence on this point okay and if if i'm wrong about that please do correct me

02:05:32 now let's move forward

02:05:37 cel403093 please

02:05:45 this is a presentation which was done uh on the 11th of march 2014

02:05:54 2014 have you seen it before sorry what was the date

02:05:59 the date the 11th of march 2014. i don't know and i'll show it to you it runs to some 17 pages or so and let's

02:06:10 it runs to some 17 pages or so and let's just look at the first few slides and see if they trigger a recollection project objective objectives gain bre 135 approval with celetex rs 5000 for

02:06:23 135 approval with celetex rs 5000 for use in buildings above 18 meters by q1 2014 and then the next slide project update etc is this is this familiar to you it looks like the um template that would

02:06:37 it looks like the um template that would have been given at a spin um meeting that first slide reminds me that it looks like it would be a spin presentation

02:06:49 and if we uh go on in it please uh to uh page three you could see

02:07:00 uh page three you could see that the criteria for bsa4142 testing you see that was uh at level two thermocouples do not exceed 600 degrees within 15 minutes

02:07:12 within 15 minutes test duration must be full 30 minutes do you remember seeing that i don't recall the presentation when you said the march presentation that wasn't a presentation that i that i recalled now i know it's a spin

02:07:23 that i recalled now i know it's a spin um right presentation but no i don't i don't necessarily remember this presentation i said to you that it was a 17-page document in fact it's a three-page document not a 17-page document we'll come to that later on but you say it was done

02:07:35 that later on but you say it was done for a spin yes that would be the general way a spin would run each project manager would give a brief update on their on their project

02:07:41 project and if you look at to page three actions for coming month retesting due mid-april so did we take it

02:07:48 it by the time of this slide meeting budget had been released for a new test i wouldn't know whether budget had been or spent had been fully approved um

02:08:01 approved um but it would sound that way right and then in in that same slide in the second bullet point it says improved fire barrier system proposed meeting with fire barrier manufacturer tomorrow

02:08:12 manufacturer tomorrow uh do you remember being told that there was a an upcoming fire meeting with the fire barrier manufacturer not the ira corner what was that in relation to do you remember

02:08:24 remember no i think based on evidence i've seen since we've been a a meeting with um with a fire barrier manufacturer right well let's then move on to the may test itself can we please go to mr roper's statement

02:08:36 can we please go to mr roper's statement cel

02:08:38 cel 301052 please at page 13.

02:08:45 and at paragraph 5.35 of his statement if we just look at that together he says there at the foot of the page the team at celetex had wanted patrick jones to construct the rig for the second test because paul rob and i

02:08:56 second test because paul rob and i decided

02:08:57 decided that we did not want to pay for another set of drawings to be created and patrick knew the system from the first test

02:09:02 test we thought that patrick could oversee the construction without the need for revised drawings and then over the page it says patrick was instructed by me brackets i passed instructions on from

02:09:13 brackets i passed instructions on from paul and rob to build the same system as for the first test with two changes thickening the cladding panel to 12 millimeters and inserting the magnesium oxide board on the fire barrier at level

02:09:24 oxide board on the fire barrier at level two

02:09:24 two and at the top of the rig and that was his evidence do you recall having given mr roper such instructions no i don't do you recall whether mr warren had done so i don't know

02:09:36 so i don't know and given your answers earlier on i think you deny that you were aware of the existence of magnesium oxide at the level two thermocouples and the top of the rig yes so are you saying that mr roper is lying when

02:09:47 lying when in the brackets at the top of page 14 he said i passed instructions on from paul and rob i'm saying is that i i know that i didn't i know that i didn't know

02:09:59 didn't know that there had been some magnesium oxide board put on on level two well how can you account for the fact that mr roper's clear recollection which he confirmed on oath yesterday

02:10:10 he confirmed on oath yesterday to the to the chairman and the panel was that he did pass those instructions on to patrick jones from you and rob warren how can you account for that i don't

02:10:22 how can you account for that i don't know only on what i know and only on the fact that

02:10:25 fact that i saw the product launch and i saw the product sell into the market and everything else that's happened since then and not not at any point had i

02:10:34 i known or recalled at any time the fact that we'd put magnesium oxide boards at the fire barriers now you say in your statement paragraph 106 on page 30 that you weren't present

02:10:47 106 on page 30 that you weren't present at the may test yeah was that right i wasn't present at either test right um now mr clark in his statement he's the bre it says at paragraph 174 on page one

02:10:59 paragraph 174 on page one on page 41 of his statement uh bre four zeros five seven six eight it's perhaps let's look at that

02:11:07 that he says that you were present bre405768 page 41 paragraph 174

02:11:18 page 41 paragraph 174 he says in the second line i'm aware that paul evans of celetex was also involved in the test project at a later date

02:11:25 date and was present at the second test on 2nd of may 2014 but i cannot recall any specific interaction with him before then now he he recalls you as being present

02:11:36 now he he recalls you as being present at the second test you say you weren't no i don't believe i was at either test can you account for how it is that mr clark recalls you being there i can't know let's move on to a document uh after the test cel 3010627 please

02:12:00 this is uh your i'm sorry this is mr roper's message to you dated the 8th of may 2014 about a meeting in cc's office on the

02:12:13 about a meeting in cc's office on the 12th of may you see that yes cc he told us yesterday was craig chambers yes do you recall receiving this invitation i don't recall receiving the invitation you recall going to a meeting in craig chambers office with

02:12:24 in craig chambers office with john roper on the 12th of may i recall having meetings with craig and john in craig's office i don't recall whether that was on the 12th of may or not very well did you do you recall that

02:12:35 not very well did you do you recall that in that meeting regardless of the date you discussed the recent test i don't recall do you remember what the meeting was about

02:12:46 meeting was about it was about above 18 meters then and i was there i can only assume it was about above the about the above 18 meter market and the and the project now is it right that as a result of the test and at that meeting you asked mr

02:12:57 test and at that meeting you asked mr roper to produce some slides summaring summarizing the testing position i know from the dates from what i've seen since that there was a mag meeting um at some point a couple of

02:13:10 mag meeting um at some point a couple of days afterwards indeed ceo409566 that is the invitation or agenda i'll wait for it to come up

02:13:22 wait for it to come up that is uh an invitational agenda for a meeting of mag participants sea chambers and various other people

02:13:33 other people including rob warren p evans and louise garlick

02:13:37 garlick apologies our warren

02:13:40 date 14th may start 8 30 and 12 30 and then in item number three on the agenda you can see flat roofing launch plan

02:13:49 plan review and discussion above 18 meters review and discussion 11 30 start and the end at 12 30 responsible pe do you remember that remember receiving

02:14:00 do you remember that remember receiving that agenda mr evans um not specifically but it would have been common purpose for a um or common process sorry for a for a mag

02:14:08 mag agenda to come out to people right now mr raper isn't listed as an attendee and he told us yesterday that he wasn't there

02:14:14 there you don't have any reason to think that he was do you well i believe that john roper did come to present that presentation all right now uh you let's look at your statement cell your first statement

02:14:27 first statement ceo3010058 at page 30 bottom of the page please paragraph 110. you say an mag meeting took place on 13th and 14th of may for 2014 which i attended the agenda for

02:14:38 for 2014 which i attended the agenda for the second day of that meeting included at item

02:14:41 at item 3 above 18 meters review and discussion and we've seen all that my initials were listed next to it under the column headed responsible mr ropa emailed a powerpoint

02:14:52 mr ropa emailed a powerpoint presentation entitled above 18 meters to me at 10 46 on 14th of may 2014 when i would already have been in the meeting mr roper once attended an attempt presented at an mag meeting and i believe over the

02:15:05 at an mag meeting and i believe over the page that it was at this meeting that he did say i do not believe that i presented these slides to the mag now if we look at cel 50932 please

02:15:17 now if we look at cel 50932 please we can see that mr roper sends you an email on the 14th of may 2014 at 10 46 can you see that yes and the subject is

02:15:29 can you see that yes and the subject is emailing mag presentation and all the message says is your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments mag presentation yes

02:15:40 mag presentation yes now at that time at 10 46 the meeting had already started but we hadn't yet or you hadn't yet got to the agenda item number three had you based on those timings no this was about

02:15:52 based on those timings no this was about 45 minutes before the above 18 meter review slot which you were going to run yes yes now do you know why he sent them to you at this time if it

02:16:04 he sent them to you at this time if it was he who was going to be presenting those slides i would imagine because a common practice at the mag meetings was people would have their laptops available and if john was only coming in to give a small presentation he would email it to

02:16:16 small presentation he would email it to me and then i could load it onto the the screen that we had in the boardroom the most obvious explanation is that he was sending them to you for you to present or is that not right

02:16:26 right i don't believe that would have happened on the basis that i wouldn't have accepted

02:16:30 accepted getting slides to a presentation 45 minutes before i was due to present it did you study these slides when they arrived if john presenting them i wouldn't have done no all right let's look at the presentation

02:16:43 let's look at the presentation cell3010629 please and this is the 17 page slideshow okay and it's entitled above 18 meters

02:16:57 and it's the presentation that you've referred to in your statement in the paragraph we've just seen and if we go to slide 11 please first of all it's headed market research

02:17:11 and it says everybody uses k15 as there is no alternative nobody understands the test requirements architects ask if it can be used above 80 meters answer is yes in caps building control have hugely

02:17:22 yes in caps building control have hugely differing sub levels of understanding on the subject give us a board that is an alternative to

02:17:27 to kingspan and will buy it is this mr roper's presentation of what he had found through his market research that you would ask him to undertake

02:17:39 i believe the slides that john put together so there would be his words yes yes and you understood that when he was putting that slide together these were the fruits of his research in the market that's all i'm asking you yeah

02:17:52 that's all i'm asking you yeah a very very brief summary but yes yeah it's a summary of the four main bullet some findings that he's found i mean there's no difficulty about that is

02:18:03 there's no difficulty about that is there

02:18:03 there that's what he found and that's what you understood him to have found yes you didn't have any doubts about it did you

02:18:11 did you not though i can remember no if we look at the second bullet point down it says nobody understands the test requirements architects ask if it can be used above 18 meters the answer is yes is that to your understanding at the

02:18:22 is that to your understanding at the time a summary of what you've believed kingspan were telling people

02:18:31 i don't know whether that's what what we knew king's kingspan was saying to all of the architects i don't know is it fair to say that celetex through this slide if not before were aware

02:18:41 aware that there was significant uncertainty even among regulators if one can call them that as to what the requirements for use of insulation above 18 meters were

02:18:54 i believe there was some uns yes and some uncertainty in the market on this particular application yes yes and those two the second and third bullet points really just identify where the confusion

02:19:06 really just identify where the confusion and ignorance lay yeah that's fair isn't it yes yes

02:19:13 and the plan now was rather than to educate the market and possibly invite a lawsuit from kingspan

02:19:20 kingspan to now to now to capitalize on that ignorance or confusion is that what one can take from this i don't believe that was a a decision that we were going to look to

02:19:32 a decision that we were going to look to capitalise on it i think we were going to look at what kingspan did and explain things in a in a clearer way

02:19:39 way well this goes back to the chairman's question you you had tried a representative rig in the february test and that had failed and you'd now done the test in may and it was now to be discussed in the light

02:19:51 it was now to be discussed in the light of the success of the may test wasn't the plan now to take advantage of the ignorance and confusion that

02:19:58 that mr raper had found in the market and was relaying in this slide i would say we were taking advantage because i believe what we did when we launched was be clearer to the market how we had tested

02:20:10 how we had tested why was it relevant for the mag meeting to know

02:20:14 to know nobody understands the test requirements and that architects ask if it could be used above 18 meters the answer is a capitalized yes why was it relevant for the mag today

02:20:25 why was it relevant for the mag today yes

02:20:26 yes for um to give everybody in the business and understanding about the application that we were planning to launch and why was it relevant to know that building control have hugely differing subject

02:20:36 subject differing levels of understanding on the subject

02:20:40 subject to bring everybody up to speed with with the research that have been given why was it relevant that there was so much confusion and ignorance and disputation in the marketplace

02:20:54 john's been asked to put a presentation together and he's presented what he sees as the

02:20:58 as the as as the market

02:21:02 and i would suggest to you that this was being put

02:21:05 being put before you so that you could make a decision

02:21:08 decision as to how and if so to what extent to take advantage of it

02:21:16 my my belief is that john was just asked to come and present the above 18 meter market work that had been done on the basis that we had passed the second test and the last bullet point give us a

02:21:28 and the last bullet point give us a board that is an alternative to kingspan and will buy it was used as an alternative to k15 and express

02:21:35 express proposed selling point for rs5000 sorry can you repeat that question i'll try it a different way was what was being said here uh the fact that there was

02:21:46 that there was hunger in the market for an alternative to kingspan

02:21:53 in terms of the of the market that we would sell into yes i believe people would have wanted more than one choice so really what this market research is telling everyone who reads this slideshow and one can read it very simply is um

02:22:05 and one can read it very simply is um the market's forced to use kingspan as though as there's no alternative the market would love for there to be a different alternative and there's mass ignorance out there all three of those points are are

02:22:16 all three of those points are are reasons

02:22:17 reasons to sell rs 5000 into the above 18 meter market

02:22:22 market aren't they i wouldn't have said there was

02:22:26 was we were looking at calling it mass ignorance well nobody understands the test requirements how would you describe that if not mass ignorance

02:22:37 ignorance i don't know i think i think the term nobody understands the test requirements is very you know looking at the slide again now nobody understands the test requirements is a big generalization of the market i think

02:22:49 generalization of the market i think people did understand these are all of them being presented as plus points reasons to embark on selling rs 5000 aren't they i don't know why

02:23:02 aren't they i don't know why what the motive was for john putting those slides together but well did you ask him why it was relevant that nobody understands the test requirements or the building control have hugely differing levels of understanding no not at that

02:23:15 levels of understanding no not at that point

02:23:15 point no because you understood extremely well that those two middle bullet points were further advantages or further opportunities for rs 5000

02:23:27 or further opportunities for rs 5000 weren't they

02:23:31 based on what we tried to do in our literature and when we launched the product we were looking to try and make it clearer to people about how we tested and what people needed to do if they wanted to use the product

02:23:43 do if they wanted to use the product slider slide 12 please

02:23:49 testing part 1 cost 25 000 pounds system eight millimeters a tourniquet cladding lama therm fire barriers 100 millimeters fr 5000

02:24:00 millimeters fr 5000 sheathing board metsec frame results terminated after 25 minutes flames extending test facility that's a pithy summary of what happened at the february test

02:24:11 at the february test is there anything in that summit summary that you weren't aware of when you received

02:24:15 received this slide

02:24:20 no but on the basis that the presentation only came to me whilst i was in the middle of a meeting i don't think i would have read the slides before they were presented all right uh you would have read them afterwards or no or

02:24:32 afterwards or no or in in the years afterwards and had a look back at them i'm asking you now not looking at it now is there anything in that slide that you didn't know at the time

02:24:42 the time about the first test no next slide please

02:24:52 and that's a photograph of the mode of failure

02:24:55 failure do you remember seeing that it's quite an eye-catching photograph yeah i recall seeing pictures from the test report yeah next slide please 14

02:25:07 yeah next slide please 14 testing part 2 cost 25 000 pounds system 12 millimeters are turning cladding

02:25:14 cladding that's different isn't it from the eight millimeters we saw before yes and you would have known

02:25:20 known as i think you've told us that the may test involved thicker cladding than the february test yes then it goes on to say lamboth fire barriers with six millimeter

02:25:31 fire barriers with six millimeter magnesium oxide yes so you would have seen from that that the fire barriers unlike the test in february had six millimeter magnesium oxide added

02:25:42 had six millimeter magnesium oxide added to it yes

02:25:43 to it yes so you saw that so you did know that the six millimeter magnesium oxide was added to the may test i knew looking at that there would have been information given

02:25:54 there would have been information given to me i didn't know why we'd done it i see so when i'm just trying to understand your evidence earlier when i showed you what mr hayes had said are you saying that you now you're now

02:26:06 are you saying that you now you're now saying you did know that there was a six millimeter magnesium oxide added to the second test or not on the basis of that being one slide presented to me now but i wouldn't have recalled at the

02:26:17 now but i wouldn't have recalled at the time and i didn't recall and i would never have known why we were why we were putting that extra magnesium oxide into the into the system well now you've moved to a why i want to know the what you told us

02:26:29 i want to know the what you told us with some strenuousness not half an hour ago mr evans that you were not aware at all of a decision to add six millimeters of magnesium oxide to the test are you now saying that you

02:26:42 to the test are you now saying that you were aware as this slide shows at the time of the test i wasn't aware that we had put six ml magnesium oxide into the

02:26:50 into the into the second tested system it would appear that this has then been communicated to the mag and i haven't [Music]

02:26:59 [Music] reco yeah i haven't it hasn't penny hasn't dropped with me hmm i i i we can check the transcript and i'm sure you said to us earlier that you weren't aware of the addition of a six millimeter magnesium oxide board

02:27:10 six millimeter magnesium oxide board until you saw a picture of it on your phone yeah sorry i haven't inserted i've forgotten it was on this

02:27:15 on this presentation i'm sure trying to think of the other evidence that i'd seen since with the benefit of having been given evidence

02:27:21 evidence provided to me to make my statement mr evans i'm not interested in in your trying to piece different pieces of evidence together what i want from you please as the truth if you don't mind

02:27:30 mind now let's start again i've shown you this slide it comes to you on the 14th of may 2014 in the morning i've shown you other evidence from other witnesses

02:27:42 evidence from other witnesses who have who have told and are going to tell the inquiry that you knew all along about the six millimeter magnesium oxide board here is a slide that you saw on the 14th of may which identifies the addition of the six

02:27:54 which identifies the addition of the six millimeter magnesium oxide board now when did you become aware that the second test involved the addition of a six millimeter magnesium oxide board please

02:28:07 oxide board please the only time i it it resonated with me that we had done something with that was when so there's there's this piece of evidence here and there's the

02:28:18 evidence here and there's the photo of the whiteboard but both of those in both of those bits of information haven't they haven't registered with me what we're doing the only time i realized that what we had done had been a problem was when i saw the evidence

02:28:32 a problem was when i saw the evidence when i found it on my phone sometime in november 2017. you don't deny do you that this slide is telling everybody who cared to look at these slides of which there was no secret

02:28:43 there was no secret at the mag level within celetex i assume that in the second test there was present in the fire barriers a six millimeter magnesium oxide board that is what that slide is

02:28:54 that is what that slide is saying yes and you knew it at the time yes

02:28:57 yes only based on looking at it then i don't recall seeing it at the time or knowing why we had done it was there any discussion at the mag meeting of the six millimeter magnesium oxide board

02:29:09 oxide board i don't i really don't recall i don't know did you tell the mag that this or did mr roper tell the mag if it was him that the six millimeter magnesium oxide board was placed at the thermal cup

02:29:20 board was placed at the thermal cup thermocouples uh level two in the rig behind eight millimeter eternity natura and also at the top of the rig i don't believe so did you not point out

02:29:33 i don't believe so did you not point out or did mr ripper not point out the differences between the failed february test

02:29:36 test and the successful may test i don't know i don't recall did nobody actually ask the question how come it passed in may and it failed in february

02:29:48 i don't know you don't know i don't i don't recall that question being asked well it would have been the essence surely of the item that you were to present item three in the agenda the sixth the above millimeter above 18

02:30:00 the sixth the above millimeter above 18 meter discussion surely the only thing to discuss was why the february test had failed and why the may test has succeeded and where to go from there no i'm sure the conversation happened i

02:30:11 i'm sure the conversation happened i can't recall what the detail of those conversations were

02:30:22 mr chairman i'm really halfway through this topic but it's a convenient moment yes and i think probably the day has gone on long enough yeah it has trevens we're gonna break now for the day okay

02:30:34 now for the day okay um i'm afraid i'm gonna have to ask you to come back tomorrow for some more questions

02:30:39 questions um and maybe just a minute can you give me any indication whether mr evans is going to require the whole day

02:30:47 whole day um he won't require the whole day no we will we are optimistic that we will get onto the next witness but significantly before the end of the day right so he might get away at lunchtime or shortly might do but i wouldn't want to promise

02:30:58 might do but i wouldn't want to promise that well i was just trying to see whether we could help you to make your arrangements for tomorrow it's a bit indefinite that's fine thank you we'll see how we go but anyway i think you

02:31:08 think you will be needed here for the morning at least and possibly just into the afternoon okay anyway we'll stop now um please remember not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it when you're out of the room and we'll

02:31:20 when you're out of the room and we'll look forward to seeing you at 10 o'clock tomorrow please thank you all right thank you very much

02:31:35 thank you 10 o'clock tomorrow then

02:31:40 please

02:31:44 you