Morning session examining Celotex's manipulation of fire test results, misleading marketing after February 2014 test failure, removal of damaging evidence from presentations, and deliberate misrepresentation of product suitability for high-rise buildings.
# Transcribed with OpenAI Whisper (medium model)
# Source: Local audio transcription (no YouTube captions available)
00:00:00 Good morning everyone. Welcome to today's hearing. Today we're going to continue hearing
00:00:24 evidence from Mr. Evans, formerly employed by Cellatex. So could we have Mr. Evans in please?
00:00:30 Good morning Mr. Evans.
00:00:51 Good morning.
00:00:52 All right, ready to carry on?
00:00:54 I am, thank you.
00:00:54 Thank you very much.
00:00:55 Good morning Mr. Chairman, thank you. Good morning Mr. Evans. Can I just revisit the
00:01:00 topic that we were on yesterday about the 6mm magnesium oxide board. Can I ask you please to
00:01:06 go first to Mr. Hayes' witness statement at CEL 3010154. I'd like to go in that document to page
00:01:15 20 and let's look together at paragraph 61. Now I'll show you this and take it slowly.
00:01:27 I therefore went to JR, RW and PE, that's John Roper, Rob Warren and you, with the suggestion
00:01:36 that we also include an additional board of material behind the cladding just at the point
00:01:40 of the fire barriers. This in conjunction with the thicker cladding would increase the time it
00:01:45 took for any fire to progress through the cladding and consequently climb the rig. The board I
00:01:51 suggested was a 6mm magnesium oxide board placed behind the cladding, the additional material.
00:01:57 This would be used in conjunction with the now 12mm thick layer of cladding. JR and PE agreed
00:02:03 to adopt this approach in principle with PE having the final sign-off. Now I'm going to pause there
00:02:09 and ask you do you accept what Mr. Hayes is saying in paragraph 61 and in the part of paragraph 62
00:02:17 I've just put to you. I don't recall having a discussion with Jamie, John and Rob with regards
00:02:24 to additional material for the fire barriers. No, you don't recall it but can you deny, even
00:02:35 though you might not recall it, they recall it, do you deny that their recollection is correct?
00:02:41 As I said I can't remember having any discussion about that with those three people.
00:02:52 No, you said that. What I'm really asking is whether you deny that their recollection is
00:02:57 correct or whether you're prepared to concede that their recollection might be correct and
00:03:01 your recollection is faulty. On the basis of what I remember at the time and since I would have to
00:03:23 say that meeting and that discussion didn't happen. Right, now let's go back to where we were yesterday
00:03:30 in the chronology which was the 17 slide slideshow that was presented to the MAG meeting on the 13th
00:03:37 and 14th of May 2014. Now can we go please to Mr. Roper's transcript of his evidence on day 71,
00:03:46 page 111 please. And I'd like to go with you Mr. Evans in his transcript, day 71 page 111.
00:04:16 I'm not quite sure what is taking the
00:04:45 time. And there we are, you've got it now. We've got it, right, thank you. Can we look at this page
00:04:52 please, page 111 at line 12 and here I'm putting to John Roper, Jonathan Roper the email that you
00:05:02 or he sent you with the presentation and I ask him at line 14, does that tell us that you didn't
00:05:10 discuss these slides with Paul Evans at the meeting on the 12th of May that's referred to
00:05:14 in your outlook diary or at all before you sent them to him. And just to put this in context for
00:05:20 you Mr. Evans, this email was of course the one at 10.45 in the morning of the meeting when you
00:05:30 were going to present it at 11.30 and then he says I have definitely discussed those slides with him
00:05:37 and then at line 20 prior to me sending them. I mean it looks like it's 45 minutes before his
00:05:44 time slot of 11.30 so it would be very unlikely for me to send a presentation 45 minutes before
00:05:50 and say present that. Now is Mr. Roper correct in his recollection that you discussed those slides
00:06:01 with him before the meeting on the 14th of May? My recollection is that John Roper came to a MAG
00:06:15 meeting at some point, I can't 100% confirm it was that MAG meeting but I know that there was a
00:06:23 process that had taken place in the business where people from not on the MAG would be invited to the
00:06:31 meeting to present on projects. It's something I had seen before with other people and as I said
00:06:38 yesterday I don't believe with how I conduct myself in terms of my planning I would have taken the
00:06:49 slides 45 minutes before during a meeting that they would have been sent to me. I would have been
00:06:55 asking for those slides before the meeting before I was going in. I was presenting at a MAG meeting,
00:07:02 I wouldn't have run the risk of not having the slides available to me before I went into the
00:07:06 meeting so I don't recall ever presenting slides of that level of detail to the MAG.
00:07:16 Now it was Mr Roper's recollection that it was you who would have presented those slides to the
00:07:26 meeting but you're telling us that if you were, is this right, if you were going to address those
00:07:31 slides at the MAG meeting then you would have wanted to discuss those first with Mr Room rather
00:07:36 than presenting them cold at the meeting? Mr Room sorry. Mr Roper I'm sorry could you repeat the
00:07:42 question? Yes so if you were going to be presenting these slides at the meeting if it were you do I
00:07:47 take it from your answer that you would have wanted to be sure you understood the slides? I would have
00:07:53 wanted to understand the slides and I would have wanted to have the slides in my possession. Yes
00:07:58 exactly. Equally would you have simply left the preparation of these slides to Mr Roper and not
00:08:09 having seen them before the meeting started and just let him have, let him come into the meeting
00:08:15 and present them cold? If it was myself who was wanting to present the content I would have wanted
00:08:23 to know what I was being asked to or expected to present. If John Roper was coming in to present
00:08:30 the slides based on the level of detail he had about the project I would have had trust for John
00:08:37 to have come and presented that to the MAG and for him to put those together. Yes now his recollection
00:08:41 is that it was you who presented these at the meeting not him he wasn't at the meeting and
00:08:48 therefore it would follow if he's right about that then you would have had a discussion with
00:08:53 him prior to the meeting about the content of these slides. As I say my recollection is that
00:09:02 John came to a MAG meeting to present a project and I don't believe it was myself that would have
00:09:10 presented at the MAG. Right so are you saying that you were quite prepared to go into that meeting to
00:09:17 present slides to that meeting yourself without seeing them any more than as it turns out by
00:09:23 luck 45 minutes before you were due to address the meeting? But I wouldn't have I wouldn't have
00:09:27 accepted that that was how I would have gone into the meeting I would have wanted the slides in my
00:09:32 possession before the meeting if I was going to be going in to present the slides I wouldn't have
00:09:35 accepted somebody sending them to me 45 minutes before whilst the meeting is in place. Right now
00:09:41 if looking at the other hypothesis it was going to be Mr. Roper who was presenting those slides at
00:09:46 the meeting surely you as his boss would have wanted to be well satisfied and with the contents
00:09:52 of those slides before he presented them to the MAG meeting? Possibly but I also had confidence
00:10:02 that John was close to the project and was confident being able to discuss the project
00:10:07 up until this point. You wanted surely to ensure as his line manager before the meeting started
00:10:13 that you had seen and were satisfied with the slides rather than leaving it to the chance of
00:10:19 receiving them some 45 minutes before the part of the meeting which addressed RS 5000 was to begin?
00:10:26 No? I don't believe so the MAG meeting would have been it wouldn't have there would have been an
00:10:33 opportunity for John to have got questions and and to talk through the slides so there wouldn't
00:10:39 have been a definite need for me to have seen the slides no. Was it planned was there a prior
00:10:46 plan that Mr. Roper would be there? Yes he wouldn't have been told on the day or the day before I
00:10:57 believe. If that's the case can you explain why his name doesn't appear on the agenda or the
00:11:02 invitation as the invitee? Quite possibly that the agenda just wasn't updated it might have been
00:11:09 sent out before and John was asked to come and present that part and we didn't reissue an agenda
00:11:13 that wouldn't have been uncommon. Well it's possible but what do you remember? I don't remember
00:11:18 exactly. Is there a minute or note of the meeting? We've not seen one. The only minutes that would
00:11:27 come from MAG were generally the action points there wasn't separate minutes kept in the business
00:11:31 I believe for MAG meetings. Right at any rate as we saw yesterday these slides made no secret did
00:11:38 they of the addition of the six millimeters magnesium oxide at the two levels in the rig so
00:11:44 we can assume can't we from that but at least so far as Mr. Roper was concerned he wasn't intending
00:11:50 to keep that fact a secret from you. No he's included that detail in the in the slides. And
00:11:59 it follows from that that he wasn't intending to keep that fact a secret from the MAG either. No.
00:12:06 Now can we go to your statement at page 31 please at paragraph 114 and you say there I would like
00:12:25 to make it clear that I was not aware of any differences between the system described in the
00:12:30 BRE test report and the system tested in May 2014 at any time until the possibility of it was
00:12:37 drawn to my attention in the course of Celotex's post-fire investigation into this issue. Is that
00:12:44 really true? As I said yesterday in terms of the recollection of the system and how it was changed
00:12:52 between test one and test two the only recollection until I was provided with copies of documents that
00:13:00 I've reviewed to make the statement is that it was the thickness of the cladding board that was
00:13:07 changed. Well do you acknowledge that the slide presentation which we can have back up on the
00:13:12 screen if we need to acknowledges the presence of the six millimeters of magnesium oxide but
00:13:18 the BRE test report does not? Yes that's true. Yes and therefore given that you'd seen the slide
00:13:25 presented to the MAG meeting which referred to the six millimeters of magnesium oxide you did
00:13:33 know that that was there but the BRE test did not refer to it so you were aware of the difference
00:13:40 in that respect weren't you? When I would have seen the slide at the MAG I would have seen the
00:13:48 slide but not made the link I don't know. Right you say I was not aware of any differences and I
00:13:57 have to suggest to you that you were aware of the differences because you'd seen the slide and knew
00:14:01 the six millimeters of magnesium oxide was there in the test and then later seen the test report
00:14:06 and seen that it wasn't in that report and therefore would have known the difference and seen it. I
00:14:11 don't think I would have been that close to all of that technical detail to have remembered one
00:14:16 event and then seen how that went into a test report. Would you not? No. We'll come on to the
00:14:23 BRE test report in due course and can I take you to Mr. Raper's statement CEL 301 0052 please.
00:14:31 I'd like to go to page 15 of paragraph 6.4 and he then he there describes a conversation he had
00:14:44 with Louise Garlick and he says Louise Garlick the customer service manager who I believe had
00:14:49 apparently been present for at least some of the board meeting spoke to me around this time and
00:14:53 told me that there had been a heated exchange between Rob Warren and Paul as to what to do.
00:14:58 The upshot as I understood it from Miss Garlick was that a decision had been taken it was not
00:15:03 entirely clear to me when or by whom that there would be no reference to the first failed test
00:15:07 nor to the magnesium oxide board used in the second test. Now before I ask you a question
00:15:16 let me just show you what Mr. Raper said in his evidence which I think we looked at a little bit
00:15:26 before we've seen it where he says that he discussed the slides with you before the meeting. One way
00:15:33 or the other whether he did or he didn't. Did this heated exchange take place do you recall?
00:15:38 I think it's very strange that I was said to have had a heated exchange with Rob. I don't believe
00:15:46 I've ever had a heated exchange with anybody at Cellatex and not at that MAG meeting. Just a
00:15:53 heated exchange isn't in my style so I was surprised when I saw that. Right all right
00:15:59 Leaviside the heated had there been a disagreement, a discussion, an argument if you like between you
00:16:06 and Mr. Warren about what to do? Not that I recall and sorry but looking at the agenda I also saw
00:16:13 that Rob Warren wasn't at the meeting so that again made me also a little bit confused as to
00:16:18 why that had happened. Right so you don't recall that? I don't recall that no and as I said a
00:16:23 heated exchange wouldn't have wouldn't have happened it's not something Rob and I ever had.
00:16:28 Did you have any discussion with Rob Warren around the time of this meeting about whether
00:16:36 or not the six millimeters magnesium oxide should be referred to in any of Cellatex's documents?
00:16:44 I don't believe so no. Was a decision taken at that meeting to conceal the presence of the
00:16:55 additional magnesium oxide layer in the test rig? I don't believe there was a decision made without
00:17:03 obviously seen the slides but I don't know and I can't remember what the discussions were around
00:17:08 the differences in the test and whether a decision was actually sought or whether it was just explaining
00:17:13 what had had happened and whether there was any question about that. Can we look at the foot of
00:17:19 the previous page of Mr. Roper's statement please paragraph 14 and I'd like to show you the beginning
00:17:26 of paragraph 6.3 we looked at this a little bit yesterday but let's get back to it. In the third
00:17:34 line there Mr. Roper says following the board meeting Paul asked me to create another version
00:17:39 of the board presentation which did not refer to the February test or to the six millimeters
00:17:48 magnesium oxide. Now just pausing there it's right isn't it that in fact and we can look at it if we
00:17:58 lead to a shorter version of the slide deck was then produced by Mr. Roper which ran to some 12
00:18:04 pages only didn't refer to the first test and didn't refer to the six millimeters of magnesium
00:18:10 oxide in the second test. Yes. Yes so he's right that such a slide pack was created his evidence
00:18:21 as you can see here is that he did that on your instructions is that right? Not that I can remember
00:18:26 no. That being so can you explain why Mr. Roper produced a truncated version of the 17
00:18:35 page slideshow shown to the MAG meeting if it wasn't at your direction? I can't know.
00:18:40 Might it have been at the direction of the MAG? Not that I can remember from the meeting and being
00:18:49 asked to do that. Right so you can't explain why he produced it unless it was at your direction does
00:18:56 that tell us that you accept that it was at your direction? No it wasn't at my direction I don't
00:19:00 recall ever asking John to shorten that presentation down. So is your evidence to the inquiry that he
00:19:06 did it off his own bat? He wasn't asked by me to do it whether he was asked by somebody else to do
00:19:13 it. I don't remember. Did you notice when you saw the 12 page slide version that it was shorter
00:19:20 than the version that was presented to the meeting? I don't remember when I would have next seen that
00:19:28 presentation being presented. You do remember seeing one don't you? Only through my evidence I
00:19:40 don't remember at that time in May when that presentation would have been given to me again.
00:19:45 Well let's look at the shorter presentation CEL 50961 see if it triggers a recollection.
00:20:00 And there it is it's in similar format except that it's just got changes and emissions. As I
00:20:07 say it's now only 12 pages long and not 17 pages long and it take it from me that it doesn't
00:20:15 mention the February failed test at all. And if you go to slide 9 we can see the description of
00:20:27 the second test buildup and there we can see that it didn't refer to the 6 millimeter magnesium
00:20:34 oxide in this slide. Now can you think of a reason why Mr. Roper would have omitted the
00:20:46 reference to the failed February test and deleted the previous reference in the on this slide to
00:20:54 the 6 millimeter magnesium oxide layer behind the fire barriers unless he had been asked to do that.
00:21:01 No I can't think of a reason why he would have done it. And wasn't the reason regardless of
00:21:12 our who asked him to do that to conceal the fact that Celotex had failed the February test.
00:21:18 I don't believe that was a I don't know why John has changed it and I don't know what his
00:21:26 rationale for doing it would have been. Well he's given us the rationale in his evidence and that
00:21:34 was to prevent the market from knowing that the first test that there had been a first test which
00:21:40 had failed. I don't think we would have communicated to the market part of the development of the
00:21:48 product anyway. And that the rationale for removing the reference to the 6 millimeter
00:21:53 magnesium oxide is to create a record which would indicate that there was no such layer
00:22:00 in the test rig whereas in fact that there was. As I say I don't know why he's done that.
00:22:14 The reality do you accept as Mr. Roper accepted candidly is that this truncated slide set show
00:22:27 or slide set is thoroughly misleading because it omits the reference to the failed test and
00:22:33 omits any reference to the 6 millimeters of magnesium oxide. Yes it doesn't represent the
00:22:39 system that was designed or that was tested second time around with the magnesium oxide.
00:22:44 And as such it is thoroughly misleading. Yes it's not a representative of what we tested.
00:22:52 Yes you said that and I put you that it's misleading do you accept that it was deliberately misleading?
00:22:59 On the basis that it's been it's come out then yes that was done deliberately.
00:23:10 Yeah and if we go back to Mr. Roper's witness statement please at page 15 the second part of
00:23:18 paragraph 6.3 I'm sorry we want the bottom of 14 actually is the run-up to it. He says in his
00:23:34 statement there that you asked him to create another version of the board presentation which
00:23:39 did not refer to the February test or the 6 millimeters magnesium oxide and he confirmed
00:23:46 that when he gave evidence yesterday. Do you deny it? Yes I didn't ask I don't recall asking
00:23:51 John to take out that information and create a second board presentation. You got no explanation
00:23:57 as you told us for him doing it off his own bat have you? No. So he would have done it on
00:24:03 instructions from somebody wouldn't he? I don't know well unless he's done it off of his own back.
00:24:12 Well I'm just trying to get you to examine with me the the rational possibilities Mr. Evans. The
00:24:21 rational possibilities are either that he did it off his own bat or that he was asked to do it. Now
00:24:25 do you accept that it's not very likely that he would have done it off his own bat that he
00:24:29 would have decided to truncate in a thoroughly misleading way a candid statement of the second
00:24:36 test? I don't know. You don't know well let's try the second of those he was asked to do it.
00:24:47 He wasn't he wasn't asked to do it by me and I don't know whether he was asked to do it by
00:24:54 anybody else. If he wasn't asked to do it by you well you were his line manager weren't you the
00:25:03 most likely person to give him instructions? Generally yes. Why would there be an exception
00:25:13 in this case? I don't know but I don't recall asking John to take out that information. You
00:25:21 would work very closely with Mr. Roper on the above 18 meter project and indeed as we know it
00:25:27 was one of the matters throughout 2013 that was on his KPI list. You confirmed yesterday that you
00:25:39 were closely involved in his work can you think of a single reason why you wouldn't have given
00:25:45 him instructions to truncate the 17 page slideshow down to a 12 page slideshow on this occasion?
00:25:50 I just don't recall asking John to do that and I don't know why I would have asked him to do it.
00:25:59 Well I can think of a reason why you would have asked him to do it and it's the reason that Mr.
00:26:05 Roper gave which was to create deliberately a dishonestly misleading set of slides. That's
00:26:10 the reason I'm going to suggest to you that you are asked him to do it as he said on oath.
00:26:16 I can't say that I asked him to do it because I don't recall asking him to do it so I can't say
00:26:24 that I did. You say you can't recall asking him to do it but I've shown you the document. Is it
00:26:31 possible that your recollection is simply faulty on this and that in fact as he confirmed you did
00:26:39 I don't believe that my recollection on something like this would have been the case. So when he
00:26:50 says that you asked him to create another version of the board presentation you're saying he's lying?
00:26:58 I'm saying that that's not what I remember asking John to do. I don't have any recollection of asking
00:27:07 John to change the slides after the MAG meeting. But you can't think of any other candidate for
00:27:15 the giver of the instructions to him can you? No I can't think of anybody that would do that
00:27:22 but that doesn't mean that someone didn't. I accept that it doesn't mean that someone didn't. As a matter
00:27:29 of fact though who else customarily gave Mr. Roper his day-to-day instructions apart from you?
00:27:36 I think on the basis of this project there was other people involved and had knowledge of the
00:27:42 project so that's slightly different to the day-to-day instructions because of the other
00:27:49 people that were working on the on the project team. Can you think of a single reason why anybody
00:27:53 else on the project team would have given Mr. Roper these instructions to truncate the slideshow
00:27:59 without your knowledge? No I can't.
00:28:09 Now let's go to the BRE report and let's on that topic stick for the moment with Mr. Roper's witness
00:28:28 statement at page 17 please and I'd like to go on that page with you to paragraph 7.13.
00:28:35 Now this is a lengthy section of his statement just to try and put you in the picture of what
00:28:46 he's talking about and he's talking here about the whiteboard that was created in your office
00:28:53 on the 19th of June after the meeting that he'd had with the NHBC. Yes. That's what he's talking
00:29:00 about but that and it comes here in this run of evidence in his statement and he says at page
00:29:06 17 paragraph 7.13 there was a short break in the meeting whilst I went to print off the draft test
00:29:14 report received earlier that morning and brought it back to Paul Evans's office. Now just pausing
00:29:20 there his evidence was that he'd received the first draft of the BRE full test report dated the
00:29:28 2nd of June at about 10.30 on the morning of the 19th of June very shortly before his meeting with
00:29:35 the NHBC and he hadn't had time to read it. Okay. That was his evidence and that's the background
00:29:40 to that first sentence. He then goes on to say Paul Evans, Paul Reed and I looked at it together
00:29:45 and noted that it did not refer to the magnesium oxide board in the list of components. My perception
00:29:52 was that the board had a clear view as to how they wanted to market the product even before the test
00:29:57 report was available. Now can we go over the page please and look and see what he says at paragraph
00:30:08 7.14. He says I did not know whether this was normal or not but was told by Paul Evans that
00:30:16 Kingspan were thought to be purposefully omitting information about their BS8414 test from their
00:30:22 sales literature. Do you remember Paul, do you remember you telling John Roper that? No and I
00:30:32 don't believe I would have had knowledge that Kingspan were purposefully omitting information.
00:30:36 The only information about their sales literature when we reviewed it was that it was not overly
00:30:41 clear in that particular section what firearm system had been. You had to kind of look into
00:30:48 the detail to see what system had been actually tested. I don't believe I had any knowledge that
00:30:53 Kingspan were thought to be purposefully omitting information. I wouldn't have got that, I don't
00:30:57 know where I would have got that information from. Right and then he goes on to say this was
00:31:02 Sellatex's intended approach. Did you say that to him? Not that I remember no. Did you say to him
00:31:11 words to the effect that you were going to follow the same kind of approach that Kingspan were
00:31:18 adopting, namely presenting the information about their BS8414 test in a way that wasn't crystal
00:31:25 clear to the reader, if I can put it that way. The way we were looking to approach the launch of
00:31:32 the product and the marketing of the product was to make it a lot clearer than what Kingspan were
00:31:36 doing as to the build-up of the system and as I understood the system as it had been tested.
00:31:43 That may Mr Evans have been your original approach prior to the failed February test in February 2014
00:31:51 but it wasn't now the approach that you were going to take after the May test was it? I don't believe
00:31:57 the approach changed well in February and May in terms of what we were looking to do as a marketing
00:32:08 communication. And then it goes on to say Paul Evans and Paul Reid made it clear in this discussion
00:32:16 that Celotex would not correct the information in the BRE test report. And that's right isn't it?
00:32:24 That's what Mr Roper recalls. Is that your recollection? No I don't understand that recollection.
00:32:33 I don't know what that conversation has been based on other than the mag on the 14th of May.
00:32:43 During this conversation was there no discussion of the fact that the BRE test report had made no
00:32:49 mention of the 6mm magnesium oxide or the fact indeed that 8mm of Marley Eternit Natura panel
00:32:58 had been placed over it at two points on the rig? I can recall obviously the discussion that
00:33:07 John and I had on the actual whiteboard information but no I don't believe that was the case.
00:33:16 You see this is all in the context of the decision made by somebody to remove from the
00:33:26 slideshow reference to the first test and reference to the 6mm of magnesium oxide. Do you accept that
00:33:33 the decision to remove that from Celotex's own internal documentation the slideshow is at
00:33:40 least consistent with this discussion namely that Celotex wouldn't correct the information in the
00:33:45 BRE test report so as to make it identify the presence of the 6mm magnesium oxide? Based on
00:33:54 the fact the presentation was altered there seems to be a link yes between that approach and this
00:34:00 approach. And that was what this discussion was about according to Mr Roper? Do you accept that?
00:34:06 My understanding of the whiteboard discussion which John is saying here that Paul Reed was
00:34:16 part of my recollection of that was more about the NHBC rather than the general testing that
00:34:25 he goes on Paul Reed asked whether anyone was likely to pick it up. Do you remember that?
00:34:33 I don't as part of the whiteboard discussion I don't 100% recall Paul Reed being at that
00:34:40 discussion I can't say he wasn't I don't recall him being there. Right do you remember a discussion
00:34:50 involving Mr Roper involving the question whether anyone would pick up the incorrect
00:34:56 information in the BRE test report namely the absence as could be seen from the draft and
00:35:02 will come to it of the 6mm magnesium oxide? No I don't recall any conversation on that.
00:35:07 Right do you deny it? I'm getting a bit confused about this what Mr Roper says is that there was a
00:35:14 break in the meeting and he obtained or printed off a copy of the BRE report that he'd recently
00:35:22 received and that he brought it back and discussed it with you. Now first question is he right about
00:35:29 that? Was there some discussion about the BRE report between you and Mr Roper and perhaps Mr
00:35:36 Reed as well? My understanding of the whiteboard discussion the discussion we had where I made
00:35:41 notes on the whiteboard was that was to do with the NHBC that had been to see us on the 19th of
00:35:48 June. That I understand but what Mr Roper is saying is that in the course of that meeting he
00:35:53 obtained a copy of the BRE report which he discussed with you and he thinks Mr Reed but
00:36:04 let's leave Mr Reed out of it for the moment that he discussed with you and you both realised that
00:36:09 did not contain any reference to the magnesium oxide board. Now is he right about that? I don't
00:36:16 remember the conversation being about the test report or it being printed out I thought it was
00:36:22 more of a general conversation about the meeting that they'd had with the NHBC and... Alright but
00:36:28 again I just want to understand this you do recall then do you his bringing along a copy of the BRE test
00:36:36 report? I can't say whether he brought a test report along or not. You can't remember one way
00:36:43 or the other? Yes, no I can't. Alright and does it follow that you're telling us you can't remember
00:36:50 any discussion about the BRE report at this time? I don't remember the BRE report being part of that
00:36:57 discussion when I was making notes on the whiteboard. Alright well just to clarify that one do you recall
00:37:04 having that type of conversation with Mr Roper about the BRE report and it being drawn to your
00:37:12 attention that it didn't refer to the magnesium oxide board? No I don't believe I did. Right thank
00:37:22 you very much. Yes Mr Millett. Well let's see if we can take that a little bit further. Can we go
00:37:29 to the draft BRE report? And I said to you that it was the draft date of the 2nd of June 2014. It's
00:37:37 at CEL 40s 1352 and as I say this document came into Mr Roper's hands only on the morning of the
00:37:51 19th of June so it was the morning of the meeting you had. It's dated 2nd of June 2014 and it's issue
00:37:59 1 that's the first page. Do you recognise that document? I recognise that as a BRE test report
00:38:06 yes. Do you recognise that as the thing that the report that Mr Roper brought to the meeting with
00:38:11 you in his in your office on the 19th of June? If he did bring a test report with him it would
00:38:18 have been that test report yes. Right now let's look at page 35 please. This is figure 18 and it's
00:38:30 a photograph showing the condition of the cladding system post-test insulation layer and it's a
00:38:38 picture of the rig actually being dismantled. Do you remember looking at this picture at that
00:38:45 meeting? No. It shows on the right hand side a layer of white material on top of the insulation
00:38:53 just above the level 2 thermocouples doesn't it? Yes. And it also shows a white layer of material
00:39:01 at the top of the rig running on the top and on the return. Do you see that? Yes. And if we compare
00:39:08 that with figure 16 I think two pages before it at page 33 if we can just look at that we can see
00:39:18 there that in both of those locations the cladding is orange. You see that? Yes. And Mr Roper told us
00:39:34 that the orange are panels which are Mali Eternit Natura 8mm panels as opposed to Mali Eternit Natura
00:39:45 12mm panels which are the white panels. Do you remember seeing that picture? No. Do you remember
00:39:53 seeing this picture at any point and noting that there were two different coloured panels? No. You
00:40:00 really don't? No. Take it from me at least on the basis of the evidence we've seen so far that the
00:40:08 white material is a layer of magnesium oxide and that the orange is the 8mm Eternit cladding. If
00:40:15 we go back to figure 18 two pages on page 35 this is the photograph which Mr Roper says that you
00:40:28 asked him to remove all there was discussion about the removal of during that meeting. Is that right?
00:40:34 Yes. That is right. So at the meeting on the 19th of June you and Mr Roper possibly Mr Reid
00:40:41 discussed the removal of this photograph. There was a discussion which was on that whiteboard
00:40:46 note that I took which was one of the things that John had identified could be a challenge
00:40:56 from the NHBC for an NHBC approval and John said an option was to take the figure 18 out. Now you
00:41:04 said at line 22 of page 25 just this morning not long ago when I asked you do you remember
00:41:12 looking at this picture at that meeting you said no but in fact it turns out that you did look at
00:41:18 that meeting because you discussed its removal. Which is right? I'm not sure I looked at the
00:41:25 picture I think there was a verbal conversation that John was having with me about different
00:41:29 things and don't recall looking at that as part of the discussion. So you say that you did have a
00:41:39 discussion about the removal of the photograph at figure 18 with Mr Roper at the meeting but
00:41:45 didn't look at the photograph itself. Yes. Can you explain how you could possibly have had an
00:41:51 informed discussion about the potential removal of a photograph from a BRE test report without
00:41:59 looking at the photograph? It wasn't followed is it? What I remember from from that meeting is
00:42:05 that John was having a discussion with me about the NHBC meeting that had happened earlier that
00:42:11 day and I was compiling what he was telling me and making notes on the whiteboard as per the
00:42:22 document. I don't believe we were I don't recall that we were reviewing this information as John
00:42:31 was telling me that information. Now while we're on the document let's go to well let me finish off
00:42:42 this point did you actually tell Mr Roper to ask the BRE to remove the photograph? I think from the
00:42:48 conversation we were having it was about if there was challenge from the NHBC I don't know whether
00:42:54 I gave him specific instruction to follow the the detail as I understand it of the whiteboard was
00:42:59 around possibilities rather than actually saying yes to go and do it. While we're on this document
00:43:09 you can see at the foot of figure 18 that there's a sticky note with a one next to it can't you? Yes.
00:43:13 And if we turn the page to page 36 we can see what that represents and Mr Roper told us that it was
00:43:22 his note his sticky note dated the 1st of July 2014 with a text underneath it can we change this
00:43:29 image to the one I've attached with this email to show a close-up of horizontal fire barrier and
00:43:34 the insulation below and above the break. Now there's an email over 1st of July let me just show
00:43:43 you that CEL 401350 if we just look at that and it's an email from John Roper to Phil Clarke at
00:43:53 the BRE it's at the foot of the page and we can see that it's copied to you Mr Evans as well as
00:44:04 to Jamie Hayes subject test report comments and if we go to page 2 please you can see that he says
00:44:13 as discussed please find attached our first draft comments for our BR 135 test report.
00:44:19 Annotations are highlighted throughout the document etc and then in the second paragraph
00:44:25 as previously discussed could you also replace figure 18 with the attached photographs as we
00:44:30 want to show a close-up of the condition of our insulation below and above fire break with the
00:44:34 intumescent fired off if you feel you also have a suitable photograph then please include. So can
00:44:39 we take it from that that you are fully au fait with the request to the BRE to remove the
00:44:47 photograph of figure 18 and replace it? Based on that email which I was copied into then yes but
00:44:55 also with the reason for doing that based on the explanation that John had given me as to why it
00:45:00 needed to be replaced. Well we'll come to the whiteboard discussion in just a moment I just
00:45:06 want to establish the extent of your knowledge of what was going on you accept that you saw
00:45:10 this email did the I'm assuming that the request to replace figure 18 in this email and as noted
00:45:19 in the report that I've just shown you did not come as a surprise when Mr Ripper asked Mr Clarke
00:45:23 to make the replacement on the 1st of July because it had been the subject of discussion on the 19th
00:45:29 of June is that right? It had been discussed on on the 19th of June yes. And this email here as
00:45:36 I've just shown you reflects the instructions that you gave to John Ripper to ask the BRE to
00:45:42 remove figure 18. I don't believe I gave John confirmation to go and do it based on the discussion
00:45:50 we had on the 19th of June. Can you think of a reason why John Ripper would have gone ahead of
00:45:54 his own bat and asked the BRE to remove a photograph that they had seen fit to include
00:45:59 in the report unless it had, unless that request was being made with your with your approval or
00:46:06 under your instruction? John was a lot closer to the project, the test report, the rig etc. so there
00:46:15 would have been examples where he may have gone and done things without instruction. Well this isn't
00:46:22 one of them though is it? I don't recall asking John to email the BRE and say go ahead and remove
00:46:30 figure 18. John has spoken to me about that being something that the NHBC may have a concern with
00:46:38 but I don't recall giving him the the go ahead to go and to make that decision to go and do that.
00:46:46 Can you think of a reason why he would have done it off his own bat rather than seeking
00:46:51 instructions from you or approval from you beforehand?
00:46:57 Only that he felt that that was something that needed to to be done as part of the project.
00:47:01 What he says it was as a result of the discussion you'd had with him on the 19th of June
00:47:07 and that you asked him to do that. Is he wrong about that? I don't remember asking John to
00:47:12 specifically email the BRE and say remove figure 18. So when are you saying that when you saw this
00:47:18 email as you were copied in on it this came as a this request came as a surprise.
00:47:24 I don't remember whether I was surprised or or or not. There isn't any record we've got in
00:47:28 anybody's statements of you going back to John Raper and asking him why he wanted to replace
00:47:35 figure 18. We don't have a record of that. Doesn't that tell us that in fact you knew
00:47:41 when you received this email what he was going to do namely to ask the BRE to remove the
00:47:47 photograph at figure 18 and replace it with other photographs? No? I don't know. You don't know.
00:48:04 And I have to suggest to you that although we will look at the whiteboard conversation in a
00:48:08 moment that the reason that John Raper asked the BRE to remove the photograph at figure 18
00:48:17 was because it was the one thing in the BRE draft report that identified the presence
00:48:24 of magnesium oxide at those two points on the rig.
00:48:31 Yes that looks like the reason why it's been done. And you accept that that was the reason why it was
00:48:36 done do you? Yes. Yes and you knew at the time that that was the real reason why Mr Raper wanted
00:48:47 to ask the BRE and did ask the BRE to remove figure 18. No the reason was because of what John
00:48:52 was telling me because at that point as I said yesterday and earlier today I didn't know that we
00:48:57 had done that work around the rig at level two. I hadn't remembered that we'd done that work.
00:49:07 You mean the magnesium oxide? Yes. But it was in the slide we looked at which was only a month before.
00:49:13 I haven't made the link between the presentation on the 14th and what John's asking to do here.
00:49:23 Were you not curious now to make that link either on the 19th of June itself or
00:49:28 latest on the 1st of July when Mr Raper made his request?
00:49:33 No I don't know why. I know I was only back in the business after a couple of weeks and on the 19th
00:49:40 of June so there would have been a lot going on after after a two-week absence but
00:49:46 I don't know why that's happened. Very well. Let's then go to the meeting itself and look a little
00:49:53 bit more closely at what happened following up on the Chairman's questions. Mr Raper says that he'd
00:50:01 had a meeting with the NHBC on the morning of the 19th. Yes. And he describes the NHBC as having
00:50:09 been not particularly impressed with the test and also that he said that Dave White of the NHBC had
00:50:16 not been over friendly, not been friendly. Do you recall him describing the NHBC's attitude in that
00:50:22 way when he came to see you after the meeting? I don't recall him saying that that had happened
00:50:31 but it might have done. Now during the meeting on the 19th that you had with him we know that notes
00:50:41 were made on a whiteboard weren't they? Yes. And you took a photograph of that whiteboard on your
00:50:46 telephone? Yes. Yes. Let's look at that. It's CEL402517. Can you tell us why you decided to take a
00:50:57 photograph of that whiteboard? Generally as part of my work if I was working with a member of a team
00:51:05 and we were making notes and not in notebooks I would take a photo. It wasn't an uncommon thing
00:51:12 for me to do. Lots of people at Celotex did the same and took pictures of things on flip charts
00:51:17 in meetings. If we go to the various columns at the top we can see that this is in your handwriting
00:51:26 isn't it? It's what Mr Roper said. Is that right? All bar the last point. Yes I'm just looking at the top.
00:51:31 Oh the top, sorry yes. NHBC concern stroke challenge and CX response, Celotex's response, action required
00:51:38 and risk and I think you just confirmed that the entirety of the rest of the writing is yours except
00:51:43 against item six. Yes. Now let's look at item six. It says under the column NHBC concern stroke challenge
00:51:53 we can see that John Roper has written calcium silicate at level two. Now he wrote that not you.
00:52:02 Yes. Does that tell us that he was the one essentially giving the explanation at that stage?
00:52:09 I don't know why John would have started writing that and not me having done the first five points.
00:52:15 Right okay. Now in fact calcium silicate is another way of describing magnesium oxide isn't it?
00:52:27 I don't know the technical differences between calcium silicate and magnesium oxide but I know
00:52:31 that they're both that type of product. Yes. Similar products. Just enlighteners that they
00:52:37 are products or compounds if you like which are not only non-combustible but don't conduct heat.
00:52:45 Yeah I know they're non-combustible. I know they're used as kind of high impact boards as well or have
00:52:49 been used as high impact boards. Right. Now under Celotex's response
00:52:56 John Roper noted confidence in fire barriers to expand.
00:53:02 So did you understand that he was setting out the purported justification that would be given to the
00:53:09 NHBC had they found out about the presence of the six millimeters of magnesium oxide?
00:53:19 John was telling me that if that was a challenge that came from the NHBC then
00:53:23 that would be the response that Celotex could give. Yes. Yes.
00:53:29 And under action required it said or it says remove last image of test report.
00:53:37 Now we've seen the test report and the last image is indeed figure 18 which we've looked at now.
00:53:43 So that tells us doesn't it that there was discussion at this meeting in your office
00:53:50 between you and John Roper about the removal of figure 18 doesn't it? Yes.
00:53:57 Can we look at paragraph 130 of your witness statement?
00:54:07 You'll find that on page 536.
00:54:15 You say that I do not recall this email which is the email of the 1st of July
00:54:22 nor do I recall any discussion relating to the request in Mr Roper's email to replace figure 18
00:54:26 in the draft test report. I relied on Mr Roper in relation to matters such as the detail on finalizing
00:54:32 the test report. Now having looked at your whiteboard photograph and the whiteboard of
00:54:36 that meeting do you accept that in fact there was a discussion relating to the request in Mr
00:54:42 Roper's email to replace figure 18 in the draft test report because we can see it in the third
00:54:47 column on the whiteboard? The only time I recall the conversation that happened with the NHBC
00:54:52 was when I by chance found that photo on my phone after the fire.
00:55:01 All right but you so you now do recall the discussion you didn't when you did your
00:55:04 statement is that right but you did when you? I recall I recalled the discussion as soon as I
00:55:10 found the photo on my phone. Right but you did you not have the photograph of the whiteboard
00:55:15 when you did your statement? Yes. Yes. Did that not prompt a recollection of the discussion about
00:55:22 the request by Mr Roper to remove figure 18?
00:55:30 I can't remember exactly the flow of my knowledge sorry.
00:55:45 Well let me put it a different way see if I can help. You say I do not recall nor do I recall
00:55:49 any discussion relating to the request in Mr Roper's email to replace figure 18 in the draft
00:55:54 test report. Are you saying in your statement that even though you've seen the photograph of
00:55:59 the whiteboard made on the 19th of June at the meeting in your office that still doesn't trigger
00:56:06 any recollection in your mind of the discussion on that day? The only discussion I as soon as I saw
00:56:17 and found the photo and and saw what the content of the photo was I recalled that John and I had
00:56:24 had that meeting but I didn't necessarily unless I was looking at that I didn't recall that we had
00:56:32 asked them to replace figure 18. I'm not sure I understand. Let me try a third time. When you
00:56:45 saw the photograph of the whiteboard from the 19th of June meeting did it trigger a
00:56:50 recollection of the discussion about the removal of figure figure 18 or did it not?
00:56:57 I think it must have done because I was reading the detail that that was an option that
00:57:01 that was possible. I don't know whether I'd remembered that we'd actually sent the email.
00:57:05 Yes and given that you refer to the whiteboard in your statement why do you say nor do I recall
00:57:11 any discussion relating to the request to replace figure 18 in the draft test report? Can you explain?
00:57:21 No I can't sorry.
00:57:39 Do you accept that in fact Mr Evans you and Mr Roper discussed the potential request to the BRE
00:57:47 to remove figure 18 from the draft test report at this meeting?
00:57:53 What I was discussing my understanding of what I was discussing with John at the time was that the
00:57:59 NHBC may have some concerns about the system that was tested and John was giving me the information
00:58:09 that what these responses could be if we were challenged on that.
00:58:13 Yeah and one of the responses would be take the picture out.
00:58:19 Yes. And as we can see from the email of the 1st of July and Mr Roper's own comment in the
00:58:28 draft going back to the BRE that is precisely what he then proceeded to do didn't he? Yes he did yeah.
00:58:34 With your knowledge? Only because I was copied into the email I don't remember saying to John
00:58:40 we've talked about this you now need to go and do that. No Mr Evans with your knowledge and approval
00:58:46 which arose at the 19th of June meeting? No. And the reason you instructed him as I would suggest
00:58:54 to you based on what Mr Roper told us to remove the to remove figure 18 was because it was the
00:59:03 only indication in the draft test report that showed the presence of the magnesium oxide
00:59:09 layer in two places in the test rig. That's right isn't it? That's not because I didn't know
00:59:16 or recall that we'd done what we've done around the magnesium oxide then no I wasn't asking John
00:59:24 to deliberately go and do that. I don't recall asking John to go and send that email. And I'm
00:59:31 going to suggest to you that you instructed John Roper to ask the BRE to remove figure 18 for that
00:59:39 reason consistently with your instruction to him to remove the reference to the magnesium oxide
00:59:46 in the truncated slide pack that we saw earlier. No that's not my recollection. It's certainly his
00:59:54 do you say his recollection is faulty and yours is better? I just think I would have remembered
01:00:00 doing things like that. Well he does remember doing things like that and are you saying his
01:00:05 recollection is faulty and yours is better? Based on what I remember and how I've all of the
01:00:14 recollections at the time and since I don't recall asking John to I don't recall the discussion around
01:00:22 the magnesium oxide or the giving John instruction to take those out of the test report.
01:00:31 Can we get back to the slides please at CEL 402517. There's one more thing I just want to ask you about
01:00:43 and that's the last column
01:00:47 where you can see that John Roper under the column headed risk wrote medium. What was that about?
01:01:00 I believe the risk was to do with NHBC
01:01:08 accepting Celotex for use on their on their projects. Well that's
01:01:17 clearly the case very broadly. What was the precise risk that you or he or both of you
01:01:24 perhaps were gauging as a medium risk in relation to item six specifically which is where we see it?
01:01:35 I don't know what we'd have meant by medium risk. Was it a medium risk
01:01:40 that the NHBC would pick up the fact that magnesium oxide had been used
01:01:46 in the test and challenge the test on that basis?
01:01:54 I don't know. Or was it the risk that the NHBC might somehow discover the fact that the BRE test
01:02:04 report without the reference without figure 18 in it was misleading? That's to say I don't know.
01:02:23 I'd like to turn then to the topic of marketing. Marketing the RS5000. Now
01:02:33 we start I think on the 1st of July 2014 with CEL 401213.
01:02:46 This is Mr Roper's email to you on that date emailing you a marketing action plan.
01:02:54 As discussed folder J Roper under M drive has everything to do with RS in thanks.
01:03:00 Rather a pithy and perhaps not particularly communicative message but let's look at
01:03:05 the attachment. It's at CEL 401214
01:03:14 and this is a document entitled marketing action plan which Mr Roper created. Launch date 5th
01:03:21 August and there are the content. Do you remember seeing this document?
01:03:25 We would have had a marketing action plan for RS5000. They were common for all products that
01:03:29 we launched. Do you remember seeing this document? Yes. And if we go to page 2 please it lists under
01:03:36 the third bullet under objectives. Present RS5000 as Celotex's primary rain screen application
01:03:47 offering to compete directly with Kingspan K15 and Rockwell Duo Slab. That was not only
01:03:56 one of the motivations for developing RS5000 but also one of its selling points wasn't it?
01:04:03 Sorry selling points in relation to? It was a selling point that it was a primary rain
01:04:09 screen application which would compete directly with Kingspan K15. Yes the product was marketed
01:04:15 as being specific for rain screen cladding. Yes and indeed we looked yesterday at the slideshow
01:04:19 which said give us an alternative and we'll buy it. An alternative to Kingspan K15 and we'll buy it.
01:04:26 That's what that links with. No I think what this links with is that Celotex at that time as part
01:04:31 of its strategy was moving to have specific applications. A lot of their products could be
01:04:37 used in multiple applications. Definitely the 4000 range and one of the things the company wanted to
01:04:42 do as we moved into the ownership from Sangaban is start having more specific products for
01:04:50 applications and marketing them that way. And under concept it says proposition the first PIR
01:04:57 insulation board tested and approved to be R135 and therefore acceptable for use in buildings
01:05:04 above 80 meters in height. Do you remember who came up with that wording?
01:05:08 I think the wording was a combination of two or three different people's attention. Mr Roper told
01:05:15 us that he had not in fact come up with that that wording but had lifted it pretty much verbatim
01:05:22 from Kingspan's March 2011 Kingspan Cool Thirn K15 data sheet. Did you know that? No.
01:05:31 Do you accept that that wording would suggest that because RS5000 had been tested and approved
01:05:38 to be R135 it was for that reason acceptable for use on all buildings over 18 meters?
01:05:44 No that wasn't the discussion that we'd been having previously but even before July in the business
01:05:48 about how we would market the product. We weren't saying it could be used in buildings above 80 or
01:05:54 in all buildings above 18 meters. I think that's what we were talking about.
01:05:58 I'm asking you about the words. Do you accept that the words and therefore acceptable for use in
01:06:04 buildings above 18 meters in height would suggest that because RS5000 had been tested and approved
01:06:11 and met the BR135 criteria it was for that reason acceptable for use on all buildings over 18 meters?
01:06:17 I'm focusing on the language.
01:06:19 Yes I think at the time that would have been the business's understanding of being able to be used
01:06:25 on buildings above 18 meters was that you had passed a test which therefore complied with the
01:06:30 requirements of BR135. Well that's correct isn't it? An accurate statement would be that RS5000
01:06:38 could be used on all buildings over 18 meters provided it was for that reason acceptable for
01:06:43 use in buildings above 18 meters.
01:06:45 Yes and that is what we looked to do when we started to launch the additional marketing materials
01:06:51 that went with the product. And given that an accurate statement would have been set out in that
01:06:55 way the statement and therefore acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters would be that
01:07:01 RS5000 could be used on all buildings over 18 meters provided it was used in exactly the same
01:07:08 way.
01:07:08 Yes and that is what we looked to do when we started to launch the additional marketing materials
01:07:12 that went with the product. And given that an accurate statement would have been set out in that
01:07:16 way the statement and therefore acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height
01:07:22 was thoroughly misleading wasn't it? If it was used.
01:07:29 At the time we didn't see that as being misleading no.
01:07:34 Those words and how that they've been lifted from Kingspan and whether they were misleading.
01:07:41 When you got this document from Mr Roper on the 1st of July did you read it?
01:07:46 I'm pretty sure I would have read it yes.
01:07:48 Did you not then pick up the wording on the proposition? Did you read that specifically?
01:07:54 No.
01:07:55 I would have read the whole document but I wouldn't have picked up that there was something
01:07:59 wrong with that no.
01:08:01 So do I take it that you would have read the language there next to proposition
01:08:05 but not thought that the words and therefore acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters
01:08:10 in height was thoroughly misleading? You didn't see it that way is that right?
01:08:13 No.
01:08:14 So did you think that it was right to present RS5000 as acceptable for use in buildings above
01:08:23 18 meters in height? Take those words on their own do you think they're accurate?
01:08:26 When presented with the additional information that we attempted to put in lots of the other
01:08:32 marketing material that was a decision that the business was aware of how we were going to market
01:08:37 the product across lots of different parts of Cellatex and Sangaban and they seemed they appear
01:08:44 to have been locked down as the main words.
01:08:51 Do you accept that it would be thoroughly misleading to present RS5000 as acceptable for use
01:08:57 in buildings above 18 meters in height? If used as a standalone statement without any additional
01:09:04 information to be available or in the same document then yes but that wasn't what we were
01:09:08 trying to do. I understand the qualification you want to put on your answer but I just want to see
01:09:13 if I see how far you're prepared to accept what Mr Roper was prepared to accept which is that those
01:09:18 words in that proposition are thoroughly misleading because they suggest as they stand that because
01:09:27 RS5000 had passed the test it could be used on buildings above 18 meters in height without
01:09:34 qualification. Without qualification I can see how somebody that would could see those words as
01:09:41 being misleading but that wasn't the intention from the marketing plan.
01:09:47 Let's then move to the marketing literature. You say it wasn't the intention from the marketing plan
01:09:53 let's explore that in some detail. Can we go please to your statement at page 39?
01:10:02 I want to start off with this because it's what you say is your recollection. At the foot of page
01:10:08 39 you see paragraph 141 and you say the marketing proposition for RS5000 was quite simple.
01:10:15 We saw K15 as the benchmark and we're moving into the rain screen clouding market for both below
01:10:19 and above 18 meter applications in competition to Kingspan importantly and if we go over the page
01:10:27 recognising that the testing of RS5000 to BR135 and to BS8414 part 2 had involved the product
01:10:33 being tested as part of an overall system. We were keen to make it absolutely clear in the
01:10:38 marketing literature that the product approval to the two standards had occurred as part of a
01:10:42 system so the product was not approved in isolation for any for use in any application or system.
01:10:50 Now that's what you say though. Let's look at the marketing literature closely.
01:10:54 We'll start with the compliance guide CEL5012 please.
01:10:58 Please.
01:11:07 And if you go to page 2 and I've got to take it that you're familiar with
01:11:12 each of these pieces of marketing literature for RS5000 unless you tell me otherwise Mr Evans.
01:11:16 Okay.
01:11:17 Okay. If we go to page 2 it says this document provides guidance on complying with approved
01:11:23 document B2ADB2 for external wall clouding systems fixed to steel frame or masonry constructions.
01:11:29 It provides a step-by-step guide to an alternative route to compliance for ADB2 through meeting the
01:11:34 performance criteria set out in BR135 through testing to BS8414 part 1 2002 or BS8414 part 2
01:11:43 2005. In fact it's right isn't it that actually RS5000 had never been tested under BS8414 part 1
01:11:52 had it? No.
01:11:57 So to the extent that this document suggests that it had to that extent it was misleading no?
01:12:07 I think what's happened here or potentially happened here is the
01:12:12 fact that we are marketing the product for above and below rain screen clouding as well.
01:12:17 Ah all right.
01:12:18 Well you are actually showing a picture of a masonry substrate aren't you?
01:12:25 Yes.
01:12:26 And that hadn't been tested?
01:12:27 No that hadn't been tested and I think this is where
01:12:31 why we changed the product from AE to rain screen we were looking to get a product into
01:12:37 a specific product for the rain screen market because K15 could be used below 18 meters and
01:12:42 above 18 meters there was a time delay between the launch of FR5000 and RS5000 and FR5000 was
01:12:51 suitable for use below 18 meters so the longer term plan for the business was to have a solution
01:12:56 for both one product that could be used above and below 18 meters. So that might be why that's
01:13:01 that's happened there.
01:13:03 Well just explain how that works it's right isn't it that you wouldn't need
01:13:07 to satisfy the criteria in BR135 through a BS8414 part 1 or part 2 test for any building if you were
01:13:18 going to use it below 18 meters would you?
01:13:20 No that's true.
01:13:21 No. So what was the purpose of telling readers that this was a step-by-step guide to an alternative
01:13:29 route to compliance through meeting the performance criteria set out in BR135 through testing to BS8414
01:13:35 part 1?
01:13:38 When it hadn't.
01:13:47 I don't know how that's happened.
01:13:48 It's misleading isn't it in that respect?
01:13:58 It's certainly not showing the test that we did.
01:14:04 To be fair to you it does come on to that but just as a standalone statement first page first
01:14:07 thing that anybody reads would suggest that RS5000 had been tested under both parts of BS8414.
01:14:20 It could be read that way yes.
01:14:22 Yeah and if it were read that way it would be thoroughly misleading wouldn't it?
01:14:28 Yes it wouldn't it wouldn't cover the only sister we passed.
01:14:38 Yeah Mr Chairman I'm just I'm going to take some time on these documents maybe a convenient moment.
01:14:46 Yes all right well we'll have a short break at this point Mr Evans we'll come back at
01:14:52 half past 11 please and while you're out please don't talk to anyone about your evidence.
01:14:57 Thank you very much.
01:14:58 I'll pass the level please.
01:31:58 Yes would you ask Mr Evans to come back in please?
01:32:28 Yes please.
01:32:40 Right Mr Evans should we carry on?
01:32:42 Yes please.
01:32:43 Yes Mr Millett.
01:32:43 Thank you Mr Chairman.
01:32:44 Mr Evans can I ask you to stay in this document please which we were on CEL6012 and go to page 3.
01:32:51 This is entitled BR135 in the top left hand corner and you can see if you
01:33:01 cast your eye across the page to the three little pink triangle bullet points there you
01:33:06 can see there's some text underneath that. Now before I show you that can I just ask you
01:33:13 a general question about BR135. I think you have been sent the third edition of BR135 in May
01:33:20 2013 by Mr Roper do you remember that? Based on I think what I saw yesterday then yes it was sent
01:33:27 to me. Yeah now if we look at the passage under the three pink bullet points it says the classification
01:33:34 applies only to the system as tested and detailed in the classification report. The classification
01:33:38 report can only cover the details of the system as tested it cannot state what is not covered.
01:33:43 When specifying or checking a system it is important to check that the classification
01:33:47 documents cover the end use application. Now that reflected the language in annex B of BR135
01:33:58 more or less do you remember that that was the case? No I don't think I ever read BR135. Right
01:34:05 when you saw this document did you read that text there? I would have read the materials yes but
01:34:16 would have relied on others to have determined which text needed to be included in the documents.
01:34:25 Maybe but when they made that determination did it come to you for final approval?
01:34:30 I'm not sure whether it was final approval but it would have come to me we would have shared the
01:34:34 documents and people would have been invited to comment but I don't think it had final approval
01:34:38 from me certainly on technical content. Did you read it? I believe I read this document yes. Did
01:34:43 you have any doubts about what that passage meant? I don't remember specifically thinking
01:34:51 anything when I read that particular paragraph. Right was it clear to you that the BR
01:34:57 criteria BR135 criteria and the BS8414 test was for a full scale test of a system
01:35:04 not for a product in application? My understanding was what we were doing was
01:35:13 testing a system and then marketing the product as part of the system.
01:35:21 Part of the system? Part of a system. Part of the same system as tested? Yes. Yes did you think that
01:35:27 there was any wriggle room any ambiguity for any interpretation of this language which might suggest
01:35:33 that a building designer could use RS5000 with any component in a system other than that was
01:35:41 tested and still be covered by the classification report? No I think our understanding was that we
01:35:46 tested the system and our product formed part of the overall system and if people wanted to change
01:35:56 that they needed to seek separate advice on whether that was permissible. Now we've seen this statement
01:36:05 in all the other marketing literature used by Cellatex to market RS5000.
01:36:12 Does your answer there apply to those statements as well?
01:36:17 Sorry in terms of this final paragraph? In terms of this language yes. Yes I think the language was
01:36:22 would have been used across different literature. And therefore did you understand that it was
01:36:29 absolutely critical as a result of this language for anybody reading this statement to be sure
01:36:34 that the details of the system as tested to use the words there as tested were correctly and fully
01:36:42 described in the marketing literature? Yes. And indeed in the classification report itself?
01:36:52 Yes. Now if you look at page four we can see the middle column sets out the system
01:36:59 that this document states was tested. Under Cellatex RS5000 middle column there's a bold
01:37:07 heading which says the system tested was as follows 12 millimeters fiber cement panels
01:37:12 supporting aluminium brackets and vertical rails, 100 millimeters Cellatex RS5000,
01:37:18 12 millimeters non-combustible sheathing board, 100 millimeters SFS system, two times 12 and a half
01:37:24 millimeters plasterboard. There's no mention in that list there of the layer of six millimeters
01:37:29 magnesium oxide is there? No. Nor of the fact that in some places, two places in fact on the
01:37:37 test rig, the fiber cement panels were not 12 millimeters but eight millimeters? No.
01:37:46 And if we look at the diagram below, diagram four, figure four, you can see that the list is then
01:37:53 set out in pictorial form, can't you? Yes. And similarly there, do you accept that that doesn't
01:37:59 show the layer of six millimeter magnesium oxide at the level two thermocouples on the top of the
01:38:04 rig or the presence of the eight millimeters of Mali aternate natura? Yes. Do you accept that
01:38:11 those emissions make the statement and the drawing thoroughly misleading?
01:38:15 On the basis of what we tested and what we know now, what I know now versus that then,
01:38:24 yes it's not a reflection of what was tested.
01:38:31 So the answer to my question is yes you accept that this marketing literature
01:38:36 here when describing the test was thoroughly misleading?
01:38:39 Yes. Yes. So any designer looking to follow your words of warning that we saw on the previous page
01:38:49 and to try to replicate exactly the cladding system that you were describing as having passed
01:38:53 the test would in fact be designing a cladding system that had not passed the test?
01:38:59 Yes. Now those emissions and misdescriptions were not an accident were they? They were quite
01:39:05 deliberate. On my part the system that we put into the marketing materials was the system that I
01:39:09 at the time had believed that we had tested. Do you think they were accidental emissions?
01:39:26 Based on what I knew and what I have recalled and there
01:39:36 my understanding was that what we were doing was what we had tested. Do you accept that if you had
01:39:42 faithfully described the test components as actually used namely including the six millimeters magnesium
01:39:49 oxide and the eight millimeters Mali aternate natura at those two locations that would have
01:39:54 given the game away as to how the test had been passed?
01:40:01 I don't know whether it was about giving the game away I don't know why or how that's happened.
01:40:10 You don't know how what's happened?
01:40:15 I don't know how the based on
01:40:18 my knowledge at the time of putting the information into the marketing material and
01:40:23 the feedback that was in the business and what people in the business were doing
01:40:27 my understanding was that was what we had tested. That's not true is it? Not from what I've seen now no.
01:40:35 It's not true that you your understanding at the time was that that was what we had tested?
01:40:42 That's not true is it? Based on materials I had seen but not
01:40:51 I think being
01:40:54 unaware of kind of what I was aware of I think is the problem there.
01:41:02 I don't understand that answer.
01:41:04 There's materials that were presented and decisions have been made and we've ended up
01:41:12 putting a marketing a system that wasn't as as I thought we had tested.
01:41:18 You knew by the 19th of June that the system was tested included a magnesium oxide layer
01:41:25 of six millimeters and two orange eight millimeter panels of Marley Aeternit.
01:41:30 You knew that because you'd seen the report and you discussed it at the 19th of June meeting
01:41:36 and indeed you'd seen the report and you'd seen the report and you'd seen the report and you'd seen
01:41:42 the report and you discussed it at the 19th of June meeting and indeed you'd seen the previous
01:41:48 slideshow in its 17 page form which identified the six millimeters. Those two pieces of information
01:41:55 I would suggest to you led you to know very well that the list of components set out in
01:42:01 the description of the test we see here was materially inaccurate and misleading.
01:42:06 Based on the information that I know I've seen things and seen documents but the
01:42:18 the detail that I was aware of and what was being told was okay to go to market was was what we put
01:42:23 in there. Can you account for how this what I would suggest is a thoroughly dishonest and
01:42:29 misleading document could go out to the market on your watch as head of marketing Mr Evans?
01:42:36 Yes, only by relying on other people to give information and decisions have been made and
01:42:43 things have been moved on which has led to us promoting the system this way.
01:42:48 Is it really is it really right that you would have delegated to other people and not checked
01:42:53 their work when identifying the build-up of the test given the very clear warning or disclaimer
01:43:01 or caveat we see on the page before? Based on what people were giving the information people
01:43:09 were giving me and what decisions seem to have been made and things that seem to have been done
01:43:13 that based on what I was launching and and and how we launched the product that is what I was
01:43:20 led to believe we were we were marketing. You were led to believe you were marketing who led you to
01:43:25 believe that? That was every well the business there was no one coming to me saying
01:43:32 this is you know we should be launching this etc. You're not suggesting are you that
01:43:40 Mr Roper or anybody else involved in in the RS 5000 project deliberately kept the presence of the
01:43:51 six millimeters of magnesium oxide and the eight millimeters of malia turn it from you as a secret
01:43:58 are you? No because it's been it's been shared in in in the business and yeah.
01:44:07 And I'm going to suggest to you that this document in the respect I've identified
01:44:12 is a dishonest and deliberately misleading document and you knew it was.
01:44:18 All I can say is when we were launching the product to the sales team and the marketing
01:44:22 material was going there was not anything in me that was thinking that what we were doing was
01:44:29 was was taking that approach. And you had to market it without those references in there
01:44:34 because you knew very well at the time as would have been obvious not only that the test had
01:44:40 included those two features but telling the market that those two features were there would have
01:44:45 meant that you had tested a thoroughly unrepresentative system.
01:44:55 Yes there seems to be decisions made to remove the those two those two aspects.
01:45:01 Yes and the rationale for removing those two aspects was because if you'd mentioned them
01:45:06 you would have revealed to the market that you had tested a system which was thoroughly
01:45:10 unrepresentative of systems being used in the market.
01:45:16 Yes. Yes thank you. Can we go to the specification guide? CEL 6-0 is 13.
01:45:27 Here it is and page three I think I can take this quite quickly. On that page you can see that it
01:45:35 says under the heading building above 18 meters. I don't think you can quite see the heading there.
01:45:52 It's under the introduction in fact but it says in the fourth paragraph CEL-X RS-5000 is uniquely
01:46:01 positioned to help meet these goals. CEL-X RS-5000 is a premium performance PIR solution
01:46:07 for use in rain screen cladding applications and suitable for use in building above 18 meters in
01:46:13 height. Again do you accept that that sentence I've just read to you particularly with the
01:46:22 conclusion at the end of it and suitable for use in building above 18 meters in height is
01:46:27 thoroughly misleading for the reasons we discussed before. This is an example of where we were
01:46:34 looking to put the system in as part of the material so we'd have introductory
01:46:40 information but then the document would also take you to the system that had been tested.
01:46:52 If we go to page five please.
01:46:57 It says in the top left hand corner CEL-X RS-5000 has been successfully tested to BS-8414 Part 2
01:47:08 2005 and then under the heading building above 18 meters in bold it says the same thing
01:47:17 and then it says five six lines down or say after the reference in brackets to BS-8414 Part 2 2005
01:47:26 meets the criteria set out in BR-135 and is therefore acceptable for use in buildings above
01:47:31 18 meters in height. Same point again Mr. Evans thoroughly misleading for the reasons we discussed
01:47:36 before. Do you accept that? Those words have been replicated in multiple documents.
01:47:46 And then on the right hand side again and it's the same point it says under the italics third
01:47:52 paragraph down the fire performance and classification report for CEL-X RS-5000 only relates to the
01:47:57 components detailed above. Any changes to the components listed will need to be considered by
01:48:01 the building designer and again any ambiguity you see in that? It's pretty clear isn't it?
01:48:12 Yes that's what we're saying yes. Yeah yeah only relates to the components detailed above. Now we
01:48:16 can see the components detailed above if you go to the left hand column at the bottom the system
01:48:21 tested to BS-8414 Part 2 2005 was as follows and there again is the the six item list
01:48:29 and again it doesn't include the six millimeters of magnesium oxide does it?
01:48:34 No. And again do you accept that contrary to the disclaimer given in
01:48:39 this document the classification report didn't in fact cover the system as described here?
01:48:45 No it doesn't. Because this was not in fact the tested configuration was it?
01:48:50 No. And again I'd suggest to you that this is deliberately and dishonestly misleading and you
01:48:56 knew it? I didn't know the information that I had and how I've remembered it or recalled it.
01:49:05 I wouldn't have sent that product to market with doing that.
01:49:14 Well you would have I suggest because you did you don't agree.
01:49:21 I just think the information that I was given has been
01:49:28 kind of removed from I wasn't thinking about those when I was looking and signing these documents
01:49:34 off. And again no reference here to the eight millimeters Marlia Turnit Natura eight eight
01:49:39 millimeter board there is there? No. So again a dishonest and deliberately dishonest and
01:49:44 misleading omission from that list?
01:49:49 Yes it's it's it's not representing the the system that was tested.
01:49:53 No and to be firm here that was a deliberate decision dishonestly to make that omission
01:50:00 and you knew it? There seems to be decisions being made and I'm aware of the information but I haven't
01:50:08 put that information together when looking at these documents. Do you remember I showed you
01:50:14 the test report at least in the first draft version which showed two orange layers? Yes.
01:50:23 Were you never curious to know what they were?
01:50:29 No I don't think I was. Did you never say to John Roper or Jamie Hayes who was at the test
01:50:36 or who knew about the test at any rate what why are there two different colors on the May rig?
01:50:41 No. You were that curious is that right? I don't really remember spending that much time on on the
01:50:48 document or looking at that. Even though it was the subject of a discussion that led to a
01:50:59 white board which we've seen on the 19th of June when John Roper received that for the first time
01:51:06 and brought it for discussion with you you don't remember noticing that there were two different
01:51:09 colors on the rig? I don't remember when we did the white board annotations looking at the test
01:51:14 report at the same time. Do you remember after the 19th of June but before the 1st of July when you
01:51:20 when Mr Roper went back to your knowledge to the BRE looking at the test report? No.
01:51:28 I'm having trouble understanding that because this was the second attempt at a test for which
01:51:33 attempted to test for which you'd had to get a fresh budget in relation to an extremely important
01:51:39 marketing strategy breaking into a new market for the first time.
01:51:44 Was this test report not of absolutely critical importance to you?
01:51:49 Yes and I was relying on people other people in the in the business and in the team to to support
01:51:55 me in that. I'm sure you were Mr Evans but you were Mr Roper's line manager and you were head
01:52:01 of marketing and therefore you were responsible for this sphere of activity within Celotex.
01:52:06 Here comes the draft report in relation to a second test having failed the first test which
01:52:11 I have to suggest to you is of a would have been of immense importance to you personally.
01:52:16 No? It was important to me but I don't as I say I don't know why but I haven't studied that
01:52:24 information in more detail. Well I'm suggesting to you that because of the importance of the project
01:52:28 and because of your role you did study it carefully. No I didn't study it carefully.
01:52:35 Well that would have been a dereliction of your duties wouldn't it?
01:52:39 I was relying on people within the project team to to support me. No but you can't pass the buck
01:52:46 to people in the project team to support you. Your role was to supervise Mr Roper. He was a young
01:52:52 graduate fresh out of university in his first job who you'd given a big project and you were
01:52:57 his line manager. It would have been a dereliction and abandonment of your obligations to Celotex
01:53:05 not to keep a very close eye on his work but critically not to read that report
01:53:10 very closely. Do you not accept that? No I think there was other people in the business who would
01:53:15 have read that report and also the fact that anything that was coming into me I was also
01:53:19 feeding into other departments and into senior management in Celotex.
01:53:28 Why would senior management have had any greater interest in reading the test report than you?
01:53:34 I didn't just mean the test report I meant the project generally. I'm talking about the test
01:53:39 report specifically Mr Evans. Why would anybody in senior management have had a greater interest
01:53:45 in understanding every page of that test report? No sorry senior management not on the not on the
01:53:50 test report but on the project as a whole but on the test report I was relying on other people in
01:53:54 the project team to come to me with their level of detail and knowledge which was above mine.
01:54:02 I've got to suggest to you that this is not credible is it Mr Evans? You were
01:54:07 in charge of this project. This was a vitally important test report second time around for a
01:54:12 vitally important marketing effort. You read that document very thoroughly. Which document?
01:54:20 I didn't read the test report thoroughly.
01:54:24 So was this a one-off lapse from your duties as head of marketing?
01:54:32 No I wouldn't say it was a lapse of duties. There would have been people that I trusted in the
01:54:37 team to be taking that level of technical detail which I didn't have and be responsible for that.
01:54:45 Right can we look at the data sheet for RS5000 CEL 407961 please.
01:55:02 Now this is the shortest I think is this right the shortest of the
01:55:07 documents comprising the suite of marketing documents because it only runs to three pages?
01:55:12 Yes a product data sheet would have generally been two to three pages.
01:55:16 Yes and on every one of the three pages there's a pink banner running across the top
01:55:23 which says in it our CEL-X RS5000 premium rain screen cladding board suitable for buildings
01:55:30 above 18 meters in height and just to make that good let me show you that's page one let me show
01:55:35 you page two top of page two there it is again and the top of page three there it is again you
01:55:42 see that now it doesn't matter which we pick but there's no qualification is there of that three
01:55:50 times repeated statement it's just stated boldly suitable for buildings above 18 meters in height.
01:55:59 Now that was simply misleading wasn't it as a standalone statement.
01:56:06 It wasn't intended to be used as a standalone statement on those documents because the
01:56:11 documents were making reference to the tested system. Yes we'll see that but I am just asking
01:56:18 you about the statement itself and really what I'm addressing with you is the presentation of
01:56:23 this document on each of the three pages you get a standalone statement suitable for buildings
01:56:30 above 18 meters in height now as a statement that was inaccurate wasn't it.
01:56:37 As a standalone statement yes but it's being the intention there and what we had discussed
01:56:43 as a business was about making sure that that was supported by reference to the to the tested system.
01:56:53 Yes what was the purpose of putting those words in the banner at the top of the page
01:56:58 on every page. I believe there was a request and having reviewed again my bundle of documents that
01:57:06 there was a request from Craig Chambers to have a 18 meter to have 18 a little bit more prominent
01:57:12 on things I'm not saying this was the reason for that but I know there was a
01:57:18 an email that I've seen so maybe it was to do with having above 18 meters in a little
01:57:22 bit more detail rather than it just being positioned as a rain screen cladding board.
01:57:26 There isn't even an indication in any of these three pages that you should look to page three
01:57:31 and find a caveat or disclaimer is there. No there's not and why is that.
01:57:40 Part of the reason for that is that we would have been marketing this to people that
01:57:44 to an audience people that we felt would have read the documents be knowledgeable about this
01:57:51 particular application and want to read more information rather than needing to take them
01:57:56 there. We deliberately looked to keep the amount of information that we had in these documents small
01:58:01 we didn't want to create mass pages of documents we wanted to have three or four pages why the
01:58:06 compliance guide was only three or four pages and the the rain screen cladding guide and and this
01:58:11 it was it was about having a short number of pages. What was the real purpose here on each page to
01:58:17 draw the eye of the reader to what to the message you wanted to get across suitable for buildings
01:58:24 above 18 meters in height but not to draw the eye to the disclaimer a small print if you like.
01:58:29 No that was never a discussion. Well then what can you explain why there is a a bald statement
01:58:36 on each of these three pages which is inaccurate and which doesn't draw the redesign to the
01:58:40 disclaimer on page three. No I can't explain why we've put it on all three pages rather than
01:58:45 the first I can only assume it was because there was a discussion around having the 18 meters
01:58:50 message a little bit more prominent. I see a little bit more prominent it's a lot more
01:58:53 prominent isn't it it's it's the message. I think again going back to the market that we were
01:59:05 launching this into we wouldn't have seen that at the time as being a long document for people to
01:59:11 read or to actually understand the system. No indeed people don't have time they want a short
01:59:18 document they can understand and anybody picking this up would have looked at it and thought
01:59:22 Celotex RS5000 is suitable for buildings above 18 meters in height. No that wasn't the that wasn't
01:59:28 the plan and I know that I made a specific because again I've seen an email where I was making sure
01:59:34 that we weren't using above 18 meters as a standalone statement in too many places. Well
01:59:39 you say that wasn't the plan before we get to the plan that was the effect.
01:59:47 That wasn't that wasn't ever our intention that wasn't a discussion that we were going to have to
01:59:52 to take people in that direction. We wanted people to have information because we felt that
01:59:56 our main competitor in that market wasn't making that this as prominent and that we could make it
02:00:01 more prominent across the majority of the information that we provided. But not all of it
02:00:06 because if we go to page one on the introduction section in the main body of the paragraph there
02:00:14 if we get back to page one it says and this is now becoming familiar Mr Evans but I make no
02:00:23 apology for it in the last but one line after the reference to meeting the test it says and therefore
02:00:30 is acceptable for use in buildings above 80 meters in height and that's repeated in the second
02:00:35 bullet point down just a bit lower down the page if you look at that isn't it and again do you
02:00:41 accept that this wording is potentially thoroughly misleading. What we were trying to do with the
02:00:50 marketing materials is we were using those words and it was about making sure that we then gave
02:00:55 the information to on the system or where people could then go and get information or information on
02:01:01 that. And then on page three it sets out the system tested and again it says as you can see
02:01:10 underneath the list the fire performance and classification report issued only relates to
02:01:16 the components detailed above any changes to the components listed will need to be considered by
02:01:20 the building designer and then above that is the system tested. Why is that on page three and not on page one?
02:01:33 I don't know I think generally we had a template of application and product data sheet so maybe
02:01:39 it's just followed that process and it's just gone into that area I don't think that was a
02:01:42 deliberate decision to put it on the last page. And on the last page we see just above those words
02:01:48 the system tested was as follows and again we've got the six stated ingredients of the system
02:01:52 but again no mention of the six millimeter magnesium oxide panels or any reference to the
02:01:57 eight millimeter Marley Eternit panels either. No. And again even had the scrupulously careful
02:02:06 designer read the small print here on page three the small print itself was misleading because of
02:02:10 those emissions wasn't it? Based on what was tested then yes. And it was it was not an accident
02:02:17 quite deliberate and a dishonest document as a result do you accept that? From my side
02:02:25 when I launched when we launched the product I wasn't looking at that being dishonest
02:02:29 of how what's happened between the second test and this happening that information
02:02:34 has managed to happen and it wasn't wasn't my intention to to have a misleading document but
02:02:44 that's how that's how it's come about. Well the only explanation for you allowing what are now
02:02:49 three misleading documents sent out to the market on your watch is that you yourself knew and
02:02:55 approved these dishonest and misleading statements Mr Evans do you not accept that? I would have
02:03:01 approved the documents based on the knowledge that I had when I was doing that and I don't
02:03:05 that knowledge didn't include I hadn't gone back to include that knowledge that I had and that
02:03:11 wasn't deliberate at all no. Can we go to CEL 504 07 please? This is a press release.
02:03:31 Yes thank you. This is a press release prepared for the launch of Celotex RS 5000 that Mr Roper
02:03:43 didn't I think prepare but certainly told us he approved. Were you involved in preparing this
02:03:49 document? I can't recall whether I was involved or not. Did you see this document before I was
02:03:58 or not? Did you see this document before RS 5000 was launched? I saw a lot of documents so I can
02:04:07 I can't say yes I did but I would imagine I did see this document. Yes I mean as head of marketing
02:04:13 and given that this was the launch of a new product entering an important market for the
02:04:18 first time can we take it that you would have done even though you can't recall it specifically?
02:04:22 I think you can take it I would have read it yes. Yes thank you. Now let's look at the first
02:04:26 paragraph. It says in the second line a new premium performance PIR solution specifically
02:04:32 designed for rain screen clouding applications. That was untrue wasn't it because RS 5000 was
02:04:39 simply FR 5000 rebranded and launched. Wasn't specifically designed at all was it? No the
02:04:49 products no but putting it into a the testing process that we put it through would have I would
02:04:55 imagine be the background as to why we use those words. Well on the face of the document do you
02:05:00 accept and you read it do you accept that in fact it's telling the reader that RS 5000 isn't an old
02:05:07 isn't an old product rebranded and relaunched with a test attached to it but specifically designed
02:05:11 for rain screen clouding applications. That's not true is it?
02:05:18 No there was no change to the there was no change to the physical product.
02:05:22 And in the next paragraph it says the latest addition to the 5000 series product range
02:05:30 again that suggests that it's a new product being added to your to your existing range doesn't it?
02:05:39 Yes and from our side because we were calling it RS 5000 and it was we were marketing that into a
02:05:44 rain screen clouding market that's why we would have said that it was a a new edition the latest
02:05:50 edition. That's not true though is it it was the old FR 5000 rebranded wasn't it?
02:05:58 Yes from a from a technical perspective but from our side we were looking at getting it into a
02:06:03 a new application which is why we would have said it was a new a new product because it meant that
02:06:09 we went from having however many 5000 products we had to having one more. Indeed and you for
02:06:15 marketing reasons we're presenting something as new because that was better from a marketing
02:06:20 perspective whereas in fact it was old. Yeah that wasn't the that wasn't the thinking at
02:06:27 the time the thinking at the time was about broadening the 5000 range in line with the
02:06:31 company strategy to have solutions for more applications. Well why not simply say this is
02:06:40 FR 5000 which we've had for many years which has now passed the BR 135 criteria and a BS 841
02:06:46 test why not say that? We did talk about whether we wanted to do that and there was some reasons
02:06:52 why we didn't I can't necessarily remember all of them but I can remember a couple.
02:07:00 FR 5000 was already was already in the market and was already being stocked in distribution
02:07:07 and what we wanted to avoid is people going into a distribution outlet and ordering FR 5000 and
02:07:14 putting it into an application which wasn't in line with the with the with the with the way that
02:07:20 our system was was being was being marketed. No I mean was the thinking that you had to present
02:07:27 RS 5000 as a new product in order properly to attack Kingspans K15 market share?
02:07:33 No I don't think so I think if the plan was to attack Kingspans market share we could have done
02:07:39 what was suggested there which is just to say that FR 5000 can now be used above 18 meters.
02:07:44 Wouldn't have had the same impact though would it?
02:07:48 It I can't say whether it would or wouldn't but I don't think from the market that I knew that
02:07:53 that would have been a problem people knowing that FR 5000 could then be used FR 5000 was
02:07:57 multipurpose it could be used in pitch roofs in floors.
02:08:03 Just on this final on this point finally top of page two please of this document with again it
02:08:11 says with the addition of Celotex RS 5000 to an unrivaled PR IR insulation product range
02:08:17 Celotex products achieve better u-values with thinner solutions and again that is suggesting
02:08:22 in fact it's stating in terms that RS 5000 is a is an addition to an existing product range
02:08:29 but it wasn't was it?
02:08:34 When comparing the two products no but in terms of putting the product into
02:08:40 a new application then that's that's the thinking behind what we were doing there.
02:08:45 Now if we can go back a page please to the second paragraph
02:08:53 we can see there that it says in the second part of it after the reference to BR 135
02:08:59 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height.
02:09:03 Again that was misleading as a statement wasn't it?
02:09:09 Again that was misleading as a statement wasn't it?
02:09:16 As a standalone statement then yes.
02:09:20 Yeah well what does it it is a standalone statement isn't it here yeah and it was
02:09:25 it was misleading therefore wasn't it?
02:09:27 It's made its way into this press release without the the substantiation of the of the system.
02:09:36 Yes and it makes the press release misleading doesn't it?
02:09:45 It's misleading to say that the product could be used in buildings above 18 meters in height but
02:09:49 that again that wasn't our intention it was more about telling the market with a press release what
02:09:54 we had and then looking for people to get more information go to the website etc.
02:09:58 Well I suggest to you that yet again this is I think perhaps the fifth time we've seen that
02:10:04 mantra it was not only misleading but deliberately and dishonestly so and you knew that.
02:10:11 Again that wasn't what that's what what that wasn't what I was looking to do when I was launching the
02:10:18 the the material that that wasn't on my mind.
02:10:33 You were not involved in the drafting here were you involved in the drafting of the
02:10:51 specification guide and the compliance guide and the data sheet or any of those that we've looked
02:10:56 at?
02:10:56 No generally that would have been the role of that would have been product management with
02:11:01 technical input as well.
02:11:02 As head of marketing you would have hardly let those into the marketplace unless you
02:11:05 would have reviewed them and were happy with them though.
02:11:07 I would have reviewed them read them and based on the information that I had in my mind at the
02:11:12 time I would have said they were okay yes we did also seek guidance as well from from Sangabao.
02:11:21 Well I was going to ask you that how high up did approval of these documents go within Sangabao?
02:11:26 I'm sorry I'm because of privilege I'm not sure how to answer that.
02:11:34 Well I'm not interested in asking you anything about legal advice I just want to know at an
02:11:38 executive level who within Sangabao approved the marketing material we've been looking at?
02:11:44 Materials and I don't know how many of them but they were they went to the Sangabao legal team.
02:11:48 Did they go to anybody in the exact on the executive side of Sangabao's business?
02:11:52 I don't know.
02:11:53 Right.
02:11:54 I don't know I know the people who I think looked at the documents or who managed that for us but
02:11:59 I don't know what roles they had within Sangabao at board level.
02:12:11 Now can I go to CEL 40s 2108 please
02:12:16 and I'd like to go to the bottom of the page where you can see an email from Bex Hartlebury.
02:12:24 She was the marketing communications manager at the time wasn't she or one of them?
02:12:29 Bex was our only marketing communications manager she left the business in early August so early
02:12:35 August 2014 should have been in a notice period at this point yes.
02:12:40 Now we look and see this email to you on the 7th of July
02:12:44 and she says in big red bold letters this needs to include BS 841 4 and BR 135.
02:12:51 Can you add into clause as not sure where it should go thanks and then she sets it out.
02:12:57 Specification clause CEL-FxRS 5000.
02:13:00 Can you see that?
02:13:01 Yes.
02:13:03 And it says
02:13:08 what it says there the rain's coming down.
02:13:11 What it says there the rain's green cladding insulation should be CEL-FxRS 5000 etc.
02:13:19 And if we look halfway through the third line
02:13:29 it's a bit difficult to tell but you can just about see it.
02:13:33 There's some additional text which says RS 5000 has been successfully tested to BS 841 4
02:13:40 part 2 and meets the performance criteria of BR 135.
02:13:46 And if we look at the top of that page we can see that you've responded to her on the same day
02:13:54 and put as below again JR can confirm this is technically accurate.
02:13:58 I've taken the wording from the technical bulletin that is at draft stage.
02:14:04 So you had inserted is this right you'd inserted the blue words there yes.
02:14:10 There does look to be a difference in colour in that and I have said as below so I'd imagine
02:14:15 I've copied cut my wording into that for John to approve.
02:14:18 Yeah well for John to approve you say that for John to confirm that it's technically accurate
02:14:23 but you are putting the wording in subject to that yes.
02:14:25 Yes.
02:14:28 And you refer to a technical bulletin that is at draft stage what was that document?
02:14:32 I don't recall whether I don't think we launched a technical bulletin.
02:14:39 Technical bulletin sounds like we used to do some internal documents into
02:14:46 communications into parts of the business I can't remember if they were called technical
02:14:49 bulletins but it's not something that I remember as being a marketing a market facing document.
02:14:55 I see can we go to CEL 40 as 9674 please.
02:14:59 This is another email from Miss Hartlebury to you a few days later at the bottom of the page
02:15:06 and the title or subject is RS 5000 press lunch and she's looking to book a restaurant
02:15:13 in London called the Duck and Waffle you can see that and you reply on the 15th of July 2014
02:15:20 at the top of the page.
02:15:25 And you say in the second paragraph Craig's view was that the above 18 meter part
02:15:32 was not always prominent enough and we can look at this on the spec guide,
02:15:37 technical guide and data sheets.
02:15:39 We always need to be careful how we validate the plus 18 meter message.
02:15:42 We can't have it in too many places as a standalone statement.
02:15:45 I'd be concerned we would need to get too techy with the press media and end up causing confusion.
02:15:51 Now by validate there did you mean caveat or qualify?
02:16:00 Yes this is the point I was making a few minutes ago where we needed to make sure that we
02:16:04 validated, caveated the message.
02:16:07 Yes so we can take it from this that at the time not only were you involved in the drafting of
02:16:14 these documents but were clearly concerned that you shouldn't have that statement above 18 meters
02:16:23 in too many places as a standalone statement.
02:16:28 That was what you were communicating to us.
02:16:30 Yes and that was because unless it was qualified it would have the potential to mislead people
02:16:35 into thinking that RS 5000 was generally acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters as opposed
02:16:42 to use only in the system as tested.
02:16:45 Yes.
02:16:47 Why didn't you tell Bex Hanzlbury that as a standalone statement it shouldn't be anywhere
02:16:52 rather than in not too many places?
02:17:02 I think at the time there was
02:17:03 materials that would only have, wouldn't have the ability to have all of that technical information
02:17:12 so that would be why.
02:17:14 Were you trying, was Celotex trying, were you trying, Mr Chambers from what you could tell,
02:17:20 trying to tread the finest of lines between the big sales banner suitable for use above 18 meters
02:17:26 and the small print?
02:17:28 No.
02:17:29 The qualification?
02:17:30 No.
02:17:30 It looks as if you were because you were saying you can't have it in in too many places as a
02:17:37 standalone statement so that would have required a judgment to be made wouldn't it about how often
02:17:43 you made the standalone statement and where.
02:17:49 Yes.
02:17:51 And therefore that judgment was a fine one wasn't it? It was a matter of gauging it,
02:17:56 working out the risk.
02:17:56 I don't remember it going into that much, that much level of thought I think it was just making sure.
02:18:04 What I'm trying to do there is communicate a comment that's come to me from Craig and giving Bex
02:18:13 an understanding that we need to be careful about having above 18 meters as a general message which
02:18:19 I think is linked to the email below which is talking about the the press launch.
02:18:23 Let's move on in time then to January 2015. CEL 403457 please.
02:18:33 This is an email in which at the bottom of page one we can see if we go to it you email Debbie
02:18:41 Berger forwarding her a document and the document if you if you go over the page
02:18:48 is a request that Jonathan Room had received.
02:18:53 In a phone call he had had on the 7th of January with one of the facade engineers from Bureau Hapold
02:19:02 and he says to Debbie Berger who was by then the product manager in place of John Roper
02:19:09 she would like us to comment sorry I've just come off the phone with one of the facade engineers
02:19:14 from Bureau Hapold she would like us to comment on the suitability of the use of RS 5000 in the
02:19:18 environment above 18 meters. Please can you consider and get an answer back to me by the end
02:19:23 of the week. If we go up to page one you ask Miss Berger she sends this to you but you ask her what
02:19:32 is your view on this system do you see that? Yes. And if we go to the email at the top of the page
02:19:38 her email to you on the 13th of January hi Paul I spoke briefly to Jonathan about this at conference
02:19:47 I mentioned the drawing is very different to the build-up of our system test and the design is
02:19:51 as is such or as such she should say unsuitable for RS 5000. Unfortunately we're not in a position
02:19:57 to give compliance all we can do is refer people to the details of our compliance guide and if
02:20:02 required our copy of BR 135 which details our system. They should discuss with building control
02:20:07 their design before ordering materials or work starts on site. Those are my thoughts. Would you
02:20:12 like a set of words that gives that message in a friendly way? Now the approach that she's taking
02:20:20 in that email there is clearly or was clearly correct wasn't it? Yes. You didn't go back to
02:20:28 her did you and tell her that RS 5000 could be used in a much wider range of applications
02:20:32 than the system itself? No. And that's because you knew it couldn't be? Unless that decision was made
02:20:39 by somebody else who had reviewed the system in line with their own building. And there were no
02:20:49 tenable arguments you could come up with in favour of using RS 5000 in a wider application than the
02:20:54 system has tested particularly where you were dealing with specialist facade engineers such
02:20:59 as Bureau Hapold. No. If we go to CEL 403607 this is an email from you to Richard John on the 31st of March
02:21:13 2015. You can see that now on the screen RS 5000 is the subject, hi Jono is your greeting
02:21:24 and it relates to, I think I need to show you the whole of the email string behind it but it related
02:21:36 to a rain screen opportunity in Scotland. Do you remember that? No I don't remember this email.
02:21:42 Well let's look at page two and see if we can trigger a recollection of what this was about.
02:21:48 If you look at page two you can see that there's an email on
02:21:54 the 26th of March 2015 from Andrew Jennings at SIG to Richard John
02:22:02 which has a query in red. When they say it was tested with 12 millimetres fibre cement panels
02:22:10 are they talking about something like an Eternit rain screen? No.
02:22:13 When they say it was tested with 12 millimetres fibre cement panels are they talking about
02:22:16 something like an Eternit rain screen panel and is this the only type of panel that the board is
02:22:20 certified for use with? That question gets passed to you by Richard John as we can see from the top
02:22:28 of page two. I can't see it on the screen at the moment but it's there. Do you see that? Yes.
02:22:37 Paul see below question and if we go to page back to page one
02:22:43 you reply to him so that's the context and you're answering his question of the 27th of March on the
02:22:49 31st of March and you say hi Johnny with regard to your question below the compliance guide we've
02:22:54 put together for RS5000 states page four that the external cladding panel is 12 millimetres Mali
02:22:59 Eternit Natura panel. Whilst the panel does not need to be specifically a Mali panel it must be
02:23:04 one that performs to the same level of specification and performance as this.
02:23:08 Having looked at the data sheet for this panel the fire resistance is quoted as A2S1D0
02:23:13 when tested in accordance with EN13501 part one. Would be worth validating the
02:23:19 specification straight performance of the Mali rain screen panel.
02:23:25 Now you must have realised when telling Richard John that that wasn't correct.
02:23:29 When I say that you say it must be one that performs to the same level of specification
02:23:34 and performance. That wasn't right was it?
02:23:40 No I think what I'm doing there is saying to John that if he wants to have a conversation with
02:23:46 you know this is the information if he wants to if he wants SIG or their client to have a
02:23:50 conversation he needs to be doing that with somebody else but I'm making him aware of the
02:23:55 performance of the of the Mali panel.
02:23:57 Well what you say in the second sentence there is that the panel doesn't need to be a specifically
02:24:02 a Mali panel it must be one that performs to the same level of specification and performance as
02:24:06 this but that's not correct is it because that's not what BR135 says and indeed it's not what your
02:24:11 marketing literature says.
02:24:15 No yeah this is an email I don't recall seeing and is different to the approach that I've taken
02:24:21 with other emails that I have seen.
02:24:23 Yes well why did you take that approach when responding to Richard John's query?
02:24:27 I don't know.
02:24:31 I want to ask you some questions about the full test report. Can we go to CEL 403335 please?
02:24:41 This is an email from you to Ian Laffberry.
02:24:45 On the 3rd of October 2014 in relation to a KeepMote project.
02:24:53 And you're responding to a question that had come up from Luke Creswell at Simcoe.
02:25:05 Where I think he'd wanted the complete test report and you say to him hi Ian.
02:25:11 As discussed can you please confirm the exact information that they are after and we can look to assist.
02:25:17 We are not able to issue the full test report as this is proprietary and confidential information to Celotex and the RS5000.
02:25:23 So I'm going to ask you to confirm that.
02:25:25 As discussed can you please confirm the exact information that they are after and we can look to assist.
02:25:29 We are not able to issue the full test report as this is proprietary and confidential information to Celotex and the RS5000 launch.
02:25:37 Why were you not prepared to show Mr Creswell of Simcoe the full report?
02:25:45 The approach to test reports in Celotex from the day I joined was always not to issue test reports.
02:25:55 So it's a policy that the company had which is why I've said for this that it's not to be issued.
02:26:07 Was this something to do with any reluctance connected to the presence of figure 18 and the fact that magnesium oxide could be seen there?
02:26:13 No I wouldn't have been thinking about that.
02:26:17 At the time as I said this is all about a behaviour that's been embedded and regardless of what the test report was,
02:26:25 Celotex was always reluctant to send out details of test reports to the market.
02:26:31 What was specifically proprietary and confidential about the RS5000 BRE test report?
02:26:39 Again I don't think I would have been thinking about the specific content of the test report.
02:26:43 It was just a request for the full test report which would always be met with a no.
02:26:49 Did you ask anybody higher up the management chain about whether or not on this occasion you might be able to let the person asking for the test report see it?
02:26:59 Perhaps under a non-disclosure agreement? Did you pursue it?
02:27:03 I don't remember.
02:27:05 Or was this just a knee-jerk reaction based on habit?
02:27:09 So it was knee-jerk but it was certainly based out of a policy that the company had which I had learnt after I joined which was about test reports being sent out to clients.
02:27:19 Right so this was as I say an automatic reaction, a blanket reaction if you don't like knee-jerk.
02:27:23 You never send out full test reports as a matter of practice?
02:27:29 I wouldn't say we never did but I don't believe our policy was that we would do it.
02:27:35 If it wasn't a policy without exception on what occasions would you exceptionally send a test report to people who asked for it?
02:27:42 For example we would have sent them to people when there was desktop studies done for RS5000.
02:27:47 Well by this time October 2014 was there a desktop study done for RS5000?
02:27:53 I don't know.
02:27:55 CEL4037484 please.
02:27:59 This is an email from you to Richard John on the 15th August 2014.
02:28:08 This is the second email down where you send him, although we can't see it from the email, a copy of the full BRE test report and you say as discussed strictly for your eyes only please.
02:28:23 He responds with an X which I take it is simply an acknowledgement.
02:28:30 You say as discussed, can you remember what you discussed with Mr John?
02:28:36 No not based on that email or that timing.
02:28:39 Given that Mr John was part of CELOTEX why was it strictly for his eyes only?
02:28:49 I don't know without knowing the background or the context as to why we sent that out.
02:28:54 I don't know.
02:28:58 Can we look at NAF and the prospective partnership with them next please as a topic.
02:29:04 CEL403360 please.
02:29:08 This is an email from Paul Reed to Debbie Berger on the 24th October 2014.
02:29:17 I'm sorry I should have taken you to page 3 in that email string, it's quite a long string.
02:29:22 Let's start with page 3.
02:29:24 This is an email as I say from Paul Reed to Debbie Berger 24th October 2014 and we can see that you were copied in on that.
02:29:30 Yes.
02:29:32 It was about carrying out a BS8414 test on their own system and she was being asked to advise on the difference between that and the tested system and the possibility of it passing.
02:29:53 Do you remember that background?
02:29:56 I remember Canalf speaking to us about a potential supply of our product for them to have a PIR solution in their own above 18 metre system.
02:30:06 Yes.
02:30:07 And if you go to the foot of page 2 we'll see the email that Debbie Berger sends to you.
02:30:20 Or maybe it's Paul Reed, perhaps you can tell me, I think it's Paul Reed in fact, but he says, or she says, hi Paul, to confirm the drawing attached is not too different from the system we tested.
02:30:29 Points to discuss would be, and if we go to page 3, she sets out a view and you can see it there.
02:30:38 And then in the second paragraph under all the bullet points she says, these are my initial observations if you like.
02:30:45 The harder question of whether this is suitable to be used above 18 metres would need to be discussed further perhaps with Paul Evans.
02:30:51 And is that because you've been managing John Roper through the 8414 test period and had a good understanding of the above 18 metre requirements?
02:31:05 I think it's because John Roper left the marketing team to go and join sales and Debbie joined and Paul's given that to Debbie in her role of taking over above 18 metre market and Debbie has defaulted to myself to become involved.
02:31:22 And you respond on the same day if we go to page 2.
02:31:28 You say, Debbie, thanks for coming back quickly on this.
02:31:33 My understanding is that Nowfold performed their own BS8414 test to include RS5000, but it was useful to get sight of their plan system so we can provide guidance on how this compares to how we tested.
02:31:46 You see that? Yes.
02:31:47 And then she responds to you at the bottom of page 1 and over to page 2 on the 25th of October 2014.
02:31:54 We can see the email at the bottom of page 1 timed at 11.13.
02:31:59 I understand Paul's question now.
02:32:01 There are other details, she says, which I've not fed back to Paul regarding our pass for RS5000.
02:32:07 I wasn't sure how much detail to go into, but design considerations included orientation of the board, the base board below the cladding that separates the fire chamber from the structure
02:32:16 and also the thickness of the A2 cladding. We used a 12mm board.
02:32:22 And then she goes on over the page at page 2.
02:32:25 The idea behind these little design tweaks was to delay the fire entering the cavity and contacting RS5000 for as long as possible.
02:32:33 It's thought the design contributed to the flames taking 20 minutes of the 30 minute test to enter the cavity and contact Celetex, thus minimising fire propagation.
02:32:44 Now you, of course, I think we're already aware of that, weren't you?
02:32:49 You were already aware of those little design tweaks that she's referred to.
02:32:53 Yeah, I don't recall at the time linking what Debbie was saying to anything pre-launch or during the testing process, but that is what she seems to be saying there, yes.
02:33:03 Well, the little design tweaks she's identified, thickening the boards, for example, were tweaks that you were aware of.
02:33:13 There were tweaks that I'd seen slides, etc., but I wouldn't have been thinking about that when I was looking at this email.
02:33:26 Now, one of those little tweaks, which she doesn't refer to, of course, is the existence of the 6mm magnesium oxide under an 8mm Marley Aternit board, which she doesn't identify.
02:33:40 Was that one of the details that she knew about but hadn't fed back to Paul Reed, you know?
02:33:44 I don't know.
02:33:45 Did you know that she wasn't aware of that herself or whether she was by that time?
02:33:50 I don't know whether Debbie would have been aware of the testing process that Celetex had been through.
02:33:58 Right. And then you respond to her. If we go to the email at the top of page one, please, you say, in the second paragraph there,
02:34:07 subject to all of this detail being in the summary report we have provided for projects before,
02:34:13 then we can just wait and follow this detail up with any other meetings.
02:34:16 I've not met with NAAF on this, just Paul R and Jonathan Rhewam a couple of weeks ago for a kick-off meeting.
02:34:21 You must have realised that the summary report would not have contained any detail about the 6mm magnesium oxide or the 8mm Marley Aternit boards,
02:34:33 because it wasn't in the full classification report or indeed in the full test report.
02:34:39 Again, that detail isn't in my mind when I'm talking about this to Debbie.
02:34:46 Can we move on to a different topic, LABC certificates?
02:34:50 Do you remember that LABC gave a first approval certificate, a drawing registration document, in August 2014, very shortly after launch?
02:35:01 I believe we got an LABC certificate, yes, in or around launch.
02:35:05 And Mr Roper was initially leading on that initiative, wasn't he, I think?
02:35:08 I believe so.
02:35:09 And you were his line manager and therefore knew all about it?
02:35:12 I knew we were getting an LABC approval, whether I knew all about it, I don't know.
02:35:17 Right. You were aware of what he was doing there in relation to obtaining the LABC certificate, I think, weren't you?
02:35:22 I was aware he was getting an LABC, yes.
02:35:25 Let's look at CEL401017.
02:35:38 And this is an email from John Roper.
02:35:41 If we look at the foot of the page, dated 29 August 2014, to all the sales teams and the marketing and tech department.
02:35:52 LABC registered detail approval, Celotex RS5000.
02:35:56 All please find attached our LABC registered detail certificates for Celotex RS5000.
02:36:02 And he sent those around.
02:36:05 And you around, and then if you look at the top of page one, you can see that you respond.
02:36:09 Yes.
02:36:11 And you say, outstanding, well done, now just the NHBC please.
02:36:16 Were you pleased because having LABC approval was valuable to Celotex and particularly its ability to market RS5000?
02:36:25 From memory and from what I understood of the project, having an LABC certificate was, yes, important to have with the product.
02:36:38 And if you look at the certificate, we can see what was issued.
02:36:44 CEL709 please.
02:36:56 This is the LABC registered details drawing and document list.
02:37:04 Which was issued.
02:37:08 And under the first box you can see it says RS5000 PIR insulation board.
02:37:15 And then there is a long list of supporting documentation reference numbers.
02:37:19 You see that.
02:37:21 And it includes the BRE global test report number 295255 issue two, dated the 11 August 2014.
02:37:30 They're at the bottom of that box.
02:37:33 Yes.
02:37:35 And then there's a box which says limitations of use.
02:37:39 And it says, for use in rain screen wall construction, including above 18 metres height, the required thickness of board for a particular construction must be established with the use of Celotex online calculator.
02:37:52 And now the limitation on use there is not the limitation on use which bears any resemblance to the caveats in your marketing literature.
02:38:07 No.
02:38:11 The statement for use in rain screen wall construction, including above 18 metres height, it's so general as to be thoroughly misleading itself, wasn't it?
02:38:22 Yes, I don't know who has put that wording in.
02:38:25 Well, we'll come to that.
02:38:26 But do you accept on its face it is a thoroughly misleading statement?
02:38:31 On its own as one sentence, then yes, unless that certificate is supported with other information.
02:38:42 And then let's go down to advice notes.
02:38:46 Celotex RS5000 can be used with a variety of cladding systems, including masonry or rain screen systems, and can be fixed back to a structural steel frame with a sheathing board or direct back to masonry.
02:38:59 Now, first of all, the statement that RS5000 can be used with a variety of cladding systems was manifestly incorrect, wasn't it?
02:39:11 It wasn't correct, no.
02:39:13 And again, thoroughly misleading as a result, yes?
02:39:17 Yes.
02:39:18 And the suggestion that it could be used for masonry was misleading in the sense that it suggested that it had passed a specific test for masonry, namely part one of BS8414 when it hadn't.
02:39:38 Yes, again, I don't know where those words have come from.
02:39:42 And then it goes on.
02:39:43 Celotex RS5000 has successfully tested BS8414 part two 2005, meets the criteria set out in BR135.
02:39:53 And then we see again the now mantric words, and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 18 metres in height.
02:40:01 Subject, and these are words in brackets, subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate, alternative compliance to ADB.
02:40:12 Now, that sentence there was misleading because it was suggesting that RS5000 was acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 18 metres in height with only one qualification.
02:40:27 And the qualification related only to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate?
02:40:35 Yes, that's what it says.
02:40:36 Well, it's misleading, isn't it?
02:40:38 Yes.
02:40:39 And to be clear, it's thoroughly misleading because the qualification was not simply subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate, but subject to the use of RS5000 being in exactly the same system as tested.
02:40:57 That's right, isn't it?
02:40:59 Yes.
02:41:00 Now, if we look and see, you asked about where this wording comes from, let's see.
02:41:08 Can we leave that up on the screen?
02:41:15 And go please to another document, CEL401995.
02:41:27 I have two on the screen at the same time.
02:41:36 CEL401995.
02:41:47 Yes, thank you.
02:41:57 And we can see, if we compare the two, start with, and what I want to compare is the advice notes in the LABC certificate with Mr Roper's email of the 17th of June 2014 to Tim Bartlett at West Suffolk, LABC West Suffolk, and also copied to David Ewing at LABC.
02:42:25 That's the email on the 17th of June on the right-hand side of the screen.
02:42:29 And if you look at the advice notes on the left-hand side, CELATEX RS5000 can be used with a variety of cladding systems, including masonry or rain screen systems, and can be fixed back to a structural steel frame with a sheathing board or direct back to masonry.
02:42:46 And if you cast your eye to the right-hand side of the screen, you can see that that is word for word the same as Mr Roper's first bullet point in his email, can't you?
02:42:59 Yes.
02:43:01 And if you then go to the third bullet point down, we'll read back the other way.
02:43:12 This is the email. CELATEX RS5000 has successfully tested to BS8414 Part 2 2005, meets the criteria set out in BR135, and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 18 metres in height.
02:43:26 Brackets, and note the gap before the word subject.
02:43:29 Subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate, gap, bracket, alternative compliance to ADB.
02:43:36 Now cast your eye to the left and see in the advice notes halfway down the block of text, it says exactly the same thing, including even the gap after the first bracket and before the second bracket around the parenthesis subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate.
02:43:56 Mr Roper told us yesterday that the text that he had sent to the LABC on the 17th of June was, as far as he could see, cut and pasted into the certificate there.
02:44:14 Do you accept that?
02:44:16 It's cut, yes, it's like for like.
02:44:19 Yes, indeed.
02:44:20 And it's done to the way in which the lettering is set out.
02:44:27 And therefore the, what you have accepted misleading statements originated with Mr Roper's email.
02:44:45 I think certainly the third bullet's been copied from text we're using in other marketing materials and something else has been added about the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate.
02:44:58 That's not language that I've seen as usual know that we were using.
02:45:05 You as Mr Roper's line manager were responsible for him sending this email to the LABC, weren't you?
02:45:13 I wasn't responsible for, I knew we were going for LABC approval but I wasn't aware of what John was going to say until the certificate has been published.
02:45:25 And when you saw the certificate, as we've seen you did, when you sent it to Mr, when Mr Roper sent it to you and you responded, well done, I'm paraphrasing it, didn't you notice that it contained a series of fundamentally misleading statements?
02:45:49 No, I didn't on the basis that the LABC had sent it to us.
02:45:53 Did you read it?
02:45:58 I don't recall whether I read it or how much detail I read it in.
02:46:06 Mr Roper's email was deliberately worded the way it was in order to mislead any reader of the certificate.
02:46:12 And we'll have to explore this with the LABC. The LABC cut and pasted his words into their certificate.
02:46:22 On the face of it that looks like what's happened. Do you accept that?
02:46:26 Certainly looks like we've asked them to consider something in their certificate and they've just accepted it, yes.
02:46:32 And that the certificates come back to you and did you know that your sales team was sending those certificates out to buyers of RS5000?
02:46:43 I knew we had LABC certification, I don't know how many times we would have sent it out.
02:46:48 I'm afraid that this misleading certificate, the wording of which originated with Mr Roper, the man for whom you were responsible, was sent to Daniel Ankerthal-Jones at Harley for the Granville Tower project.
02:47:03 I didn't know that, no.
02:47:07 Given that this certificate was sent to the marketing teams, it's hardly surprising that the marketing teams were quick on the uptake to get it out to their potential customers for RS5000 as soon as possible.
02:47:24 I don't know how that process of sending it out would have worked. I don't know whether it would have been sent out en masse, I don't think.
02:47:32 Do you know why Mr Roper sent it to the marketing teams without you checking it first?
02:47:40 No, I don't.
02:47:42 You were happy that he had done?
02:47:47 Sent it out.
02:47:49 Well, you can see...
02:47:50 Or issued it, sorry.
02:47:51 We can go back to the email if you like. You can see that he had sent it to the marketing teams and also to the technical teams.
02:48:00 And your response wasn't, why have you done this without my approval? Your response was well done, outstanding well done.
02:48:08 Do we take it from that that you hadn't read it before it had gone out?
02:48:12 I don't believe I read this before it went out, no.
02:48:15 Why is that?
02:48:18 I don't know, just the... John was working on the LABC approval and he was given as part of the project, that's something he was doing.
02:48:30 And if you had read it when you received it and seen anything you didn't like about it, you would have gone back to Mr Roper and said, could you please withdraw this document from the marketing teams?
02:48:38 It's a thoroughly misleading certificate. You would have done that, wouldn't you?
02:48:44 If I'd have known it was... If I'd have read it and seen that it was misleading, I'd have asked John why it was saying what it was saying.
02:48:50 Well, let's take it in stages. Did you read it? You said you did.
02:48:55 On the basis that I've replied to his email to say well done, then I would have looked at it. Whether I've read it in detail, I don't know.
02:49:05 Well, it's not a very long document and most of it is just technical detail. The only bits that are worth reading really are limitations of use and advice notes.
02:49:13 It wouldn't have taken you very long to read this document, would it?
02:49:18 No.
02:49:19 And given that this was, as some of the slides we saw yesterday suggest, launch with an LABC certificate, would have been much better than launch without one, yes?
02:49:34 I think there was a... I can't think of the word, sorry, but there was a focus on getting LABC approval at some point. I don't think it would have stopped the launch.
02:49:47 And you would have, having received this document, wanted to, if you were being honest, wanted to have read it, studied it, understood it and made sure you were happy with it, given its importance in the marketing effort. Is that wrong?
02:50:08 No, it's not wrong.
02:50:10 And therefore, if we proceed on the basis that you did read it and wanted to approve it, can we take it that you saw and realised that the statements that I've pointed out to you and you've accepted are misleading, you saw and realised were misleading at the time?
02:50:30 I don't believe I would have... If I'd have thought they were misleading at the time, I would have done something about it.
02:50:35 Well, you say that now. We know that you didn't go back to Mr Roper and say, this document is thoroughly misleading in a number of different respects, please withdraw it immediately from the marketing teams, did you? On the contrary, you congratulated him.
02:50:52 Yes.
02:50:53 And that is because, despite the fact that you knew, as you must have done, because you had read this document, I could suggest, that it was thoroughly misleading, but nonetheless of immense assistance in marketing RS5000 to as wide a customer base as possible.
02:51:15 I don't know whether that was my thinking at the time, I don't know.
02:51:19 I'm suggesting to you that it was, and I'd like your comment on it.
02:51:25 From getting the LABC registered detail, I don't ever remember thinking that this was going to give us lots of access to new projects without following what we were trying to do in our previous marketing efforts, which was about the literature and the system.
02:51:44 Mr Evans, this LABC document was thoroughly misleading, you knew it was, you deliberately allowed it to go into the marketplace with the intention of misleading people who read it.
02:51:57 Now, again, from the time, from what I recall at the time, that's not what I was doing.
02:52:04 And it went to Harley on the Grenfell Tower project.
02:52:09 You didn't know that?
02:52:10 I didn't know that, no.
02:52:11 And as I put to you before, it's hardly surprising that it would have done, given the importance to the marketing team of having this document to give to their customers.
02:52:20 That was the point of it, wasn't it?
02:52:22 If someone wanted an LABC registered detail, then that would have been what we issued, yes.
02:52:34 Now, it's right to say that there was later in the year some discussion about changing the LABC certificate we can see here on the screen for a later one.
02:52:52 Mr Roper said in his evidence that the LABC were in the process of changing their certificates.
02:52:59 And that is indeed is what happened, but briefly, there was a process behind that.
02:53:04 Can we go to CEL 40s 1017?
02:53:10 I'm sorry, we're still on that.
02:53:12 I just wanted to show you another part of it.
02:53:16 If you go to page two, I'm sorry, that's my fault, but we're in the same document.
02:53:21 If we go to page two, it says at the top, LABC are currently in the process of changing the format of their certificates, and these are likely to be issued to us in the next couple of weeks.
02:53:30 In the meantime, please use the existing certificates.
02:53:34 I recommend using the LABC drawing document list RD 491 to issue to customers and specifiers, as this contains more detail around the subject matter.
02:53:44 But both certificates can be issued and will be live on LABC's website within the next two weeks.
02:53:52 I just want to be clear with you that it's right that there was a process ongoing of changing the format, but Mr Roper was very keen to get the message across to the marketing department that the document we've been looking at, RD 491, should go out to customers and specifiers.
02:54:08 And you could see that from the email that you received and on which you congratulated him.
02:54:15 Yes?
02:54:16 Yes.
02:54:18 Now, going to that little bit of later history, and to be fair to you and to the LABC, can we go to CEL 40221, please?
02:54:30 This is an email string of the 6th of November, 2011, and it's an email to Sam Lee at LABC from Debbie Berger, copying John Roper and you, if we look at the top of the page.
02:54:48 And the subject is important changes to the LABC registration, EW 491.
02:54:55 And that's the topic.
02:54:58 If we go to page two of that document, I think it's the best place to find it.
02:55:13 This is an email from Sam Lee on the 3rd of November, 2014, to John Roper, not copy to anybody, about the recent improvements LABC has made to the Registered Details Scheme.
02:55:25 And he says that new registration certificates have been created, etc.
02:55:32 And if we go to the next email up from that, that document is the one that goes from John Roper to Debbie Berger on the 3rd of November, foot of page one.
02:55:43 And he says, Debs, for you, please get back to LABC and ask to take out any references that RS 5000 is the same product as FR 5000.
02:55:53 Now, you're not copied in on that, but if we go to the top of page one, as we saw before, you were copied in on Debbie Berger's response to Sam Lee.
02:56:06 And she says, Hi Sam, please find attached some paragraphs of text of suggestions for use in your LABC certificates and fact sheets for RS 5000 to replace description of product in both certificates and then some other changes.
02:56:23 Why did you think Mr Roper asked Debbie Berger to ask Sam Lee to remove reference to the fact that RS 5000 was the same product as FR 5000?
02:56:36 I don't know why he would have asked that, other than maybe looking to have RS 5000 as our only solution in that market.
02:56:46 Yes, maybe looking to have, you mean maybe looking to present RS 5000 as your only solution.
02:56:54 In other words, as a new product, when in fact it was an old one.
02:56:58 The product was the same, but we were looking to make sure that RS 5000 could be the rain screen cladding product for that particular application.
02:57:09 Then if we go to CEL 408691, please, we need the bottom of page one of that email run for the date stamp.
02:57:18 CEL 408691, Debbie Berger, 6th November to Sam Lee.
02:57:27 And then if we go over the page, she says, Hi Sam, this is the same day as the previous message.
02:57:34 Hi Sam, I've just noticed the website is live with a certificate and fact sheet.
02:57:38 Is it possible to limit visibility or better remove these until we've sorted out the wording?
02:57:44 And if we go back to page one, we can see the LABC response.
02:57:50 Now, I should just pick this up with you that her email to Sam Lee was copied to you.
02:57:56 Just go back to the bottom of page one.
02:57:59 Let's pick that up.
02:58:00 Debbie Berger's email to Sam Lee, copied to John Roper and to you, Mr Evans, you see that.
02:58:05 So you could see her message to Sam Lee.
02:58:08 And then Sam Lee's response at the top of page one comes back to Debbie Berger and is also copied to you.
02:58:12 Hi Debbie, sorry for the delay in getting around to your emails.
02:58:15 No problem at all. I'll check with my colleague who deals with the website if we can make your landing page not visible to members of the public.
02:58:21 I'll check with my manager to see if we can make the suggested changes in your attachment on the certificates and website.
02:58:26 Now, was it your understanding looking at that email chain at the time that although new form certificates had been issued,
02:58:33 they weren't generally available until the wording was to be sorted out?
02:58:37 Yeah, I don't recall this particular situation,
02:58:42 but it would suggest that we're asking the LABC not to publish something on their website until we're happy with the wording.
02:58:49 And we know that, well, you tell me, were the LABC certificates that had been issued in August 2014 withdrawn at this point?
02:58:59 I don't know.
02:59:02 If we look at LABC 40312, this is the actual certificate, EW491.
02:59:19 And we can see that it says in the box on the left under description of product,
02:59:28 this is an assessment of a PIR insulation board by Celetex designed for use within rain screen construction.
02:59:34 RS5000 is a textured aluminium foil faced PIR board that comes in thicknesses of between 50 millimetres and 150 millimetres.
02:59:42 And then it says, and goes through the same manufacturing process as the Celetex FR5000 product.
02:59:48 The difference being that it has been assessed by the BRE and complies with BR135 2013 for use in rain screen applications above 18 metres in height.
02:59:57 See conditions of certificate for more information.
03:00:00 See that?
03:00:01 Yes.
03:00:04 And if you go to page two, these are the conditions of the certificate.
03:00:15 And you can see in the second paragraph, it says the required thickness of board for a particular construction must be established with the use of the Celetex online calculator.
03:00:29 And then it goes on to say, Celetex RS5000 can be used with a variety of cladding systems, including masonry or rain screen systems,
03:00:36 and can be fixed back to a structural steel frame with a sheathing board or direct back to masonry.
03:00:42 Again, that's that that was wrong, wasn't it?
03:00:51 If talking about about the above 18 metre, what I'm not clear on is whether this LABC certificate is also trying to cover below 18 metres.
03:00:58 Right.
03:01:00 It does go on to say in the middle of the paragraph for use on buildings with a floor more than 18 metres above ground level, Celetex RS5000 has been successfully tested, et cetera.
03:01:14 And then it says this classification is only valid for the system specification and detailing outlined in section two of the BRE fire test report 295255,
03:01:24 including the associated details found in section four test reports as an alternative compliance to ADB.
03:01:31 A full copy of the report should be made available by Celetex.
03:01:35 Now, you were telling us earlier that it was Celetex is rarely departed from practice not to make full test reports available.
03:01:44 Yes.
03:01:45 So how can you account for the fact that the LABC certificate that you're relying on to market this product told buyers or people who studied this certificate properly that they could get a copy of the test report from from you when, in fact, your practice was that you'd refuse them if they asked.
03:02:03 Only the fact that I, I didn't know that that was a condition of the LABC certificate.
03:02:08 Well, I'm asking you because you're in charge of this marketing effort, Mr Evans.
03:02:13 Can you just can you explain how you were on the one hand marketing this product on the back of this certificate, which told potential buyers to ask you for the test report, but equally pursuing a policy of refusing requests for a test report when it came.
03:02:31 How does that work out?
03:02:32 I think the policy, which had been inherited during my during my time, didn't consider things.
03:02:39 Yeah, LABC certification.
03:02:47 Mr. Chairman, is that a convenient moment?
03:02:49 Yes, I think it is.
03:02:50 Thank you very much.
03:02:51 I'm making reasonable progress.
03:02:53 I won't.
03:02:54 I will finish.
03:02:55 I hope some point before the end of the afternoon to be able to get onto our next witness.
03:03:00 Yes, we do have another witness waiting.
03:03:01 We do.
03:03:02 We do.
03:03:03 And I will go and see him.
03:03:04 I think after this and just make him aware of what we're doing.
03:03:07 Well, Mr. Evans, we'll take a break at this point so we can all get some lunch.
03:03:11 We'll come back at five past two today, please.
03:03:14 And please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it.
03:03:18 Thank you.
03:03:19 Thank you very much.
03:03:28 Thank you.
03:03:29 Five past two, please.