Kingspan Evidence - Monday 30th November 2020 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:10 thank you would you ask mr heath to come back in please

00:00:29 all right it's ready to carry on i am yes thank you very much yes ms grange yes thank you can we just go back to that email chain we were looking at

00:00:42 kin405363 and your um response at the top of that email chain i just want to look at who's on that chain you it's your response to iva meredith but you've also copied that in

00:00:54 meredith but you've also copied that in to gareth mills who was beneath iva meredith wasn't he in the in the chain of seniority and also

00:01:02 also um andrew pack do you see that there yes he was also part of your team junior to you wasn't he he was

00:01:11 he he was and i asked you right at the outset of your evidence today about the culture and whether you took care to engender a culture of taking life safety issues seriously

00:01:20 seriously what i want to ask you is how do you think

00:01:23 think those below you who are copied in on emails like this would take life safety issues seriously when you send emails like that no as i said it was completely unprofessional of me and

00:01:35 unprofessional of me and not sort of wording i would normally use and it was it was purely out of frustration on a on that particular friday so

00:01:41 friday so you know i've worked with either gareth and and particularly andrew for a particular long time and you know they would also know that that would not be typical of myself

00:01:51 myself let me see can we look at the letter that you wrote on this project i mentioned that there was a a letter it's at kin405363

00:02:05 sorry that's the email chain again sorry the letter is at kin409067

00:02:19 and can you see it's to boma and kirkland 17th of october 2008 and it's about this city park project in manchester do you see that there yes and if we look at the end of the letter

00:02:30 at the end of the letter from page two do you see that you've signed this letter do you see that there and would you have written this letter or would that have been written by somebody

00:02:41 would that have been written by somebody else and you signed it uh could you just go back to the first page again yeah please

00:02:53 so perhaps we can go through it um if we could blow up the first half of it

00:03:01 so you say response to recent items of correspondence in relation to the above development pleasure detailing our appropriate rational conclusions and recommendations then you refer to adb

00:03:13 then you refer to adb and you direct as follows step one refer you to table section nine table thirteen call them is class naught

00:03:22 naught and you talk about the maximum dimension of cavity barriers step two you refer to paragraph nine point three about closing cavities including around openings

00:03:32 openings and then in the next paragraph you say in addition to steps one and two above due to the nature of the construction further guidance may need to be sought from section 12 external wall construction and you set

00:03:43 external wall construction and you set out

00:03:44 out there some of that and then in the fourth line up from the bottom of that paragraph you say as cool then k15 is not desi

00:03:50 not desi designated a material of limited combustibility in accordance with paragraph 12.7 the designer can then follow the route to compliance through the guidance of br135 for a story

00:04:01 br135 for a story 18 meters or more above ground level and then you say below that therefore evaluating the test data from bs 8414 2002 against br135 cavity barriers should be provided

00:04:13 should be provided do you see that there i do yes and then if we could go on within the letter you say however in this instance the end use application for call them k-15 is somewhat outside the normal scope this

00:04:24 somewhat outside the normal scope this being due to the lack of openings other than those at low level do you see that there yes i do can you help us as to what you meant somewhat outside the normal scope due to the lack of openings other than

00:04:37 due to the lack of openings other than those at low levels no i can't i can't recall why that would have been put in the letter and then you say therefore the reasoning behind the recommendation of the labc would seem well qualified in that in this instance there is no requirement

00:04:49 in this instance there is no requirement for cavity barriers other than around the low level openings due to the nature of the construction so you're advising on the cavity barriers and kingspan insulation can concur with

00:05:00 and kingspan insulation can concur with the labc requirements which will ensure the facade complies with appropriate legislation and therefore one would assume your contractual obligations do you see that there i do yes and then with regards to the detailed

00:05:11 with regards to the detailed specification how cavity varies should be formed and then we trust you find this information meets with your specific requirements now and what basis did you consider yourself qualified to be making this

00:05:22 yourself qualified to be making this assessment of its compliance this facade with the relevant

00:05:27 relevant regulatory requirements including requirements for cavity barriers okay well firstly just your previous question if i may just answer i think i that letter was um

00:05:40 answer i think i that letter was um probably written by boss myself with contribution from ivor meredith as well i see yeah um with regards to the to the cavity barriers

00:05:51 cavity barriers i don't think i was particularly offering advice i think i was just agreeing with the advice that he's obviously received from the labc in relation to where the character barriers should go

00:06:02 barriers should go i think that was what we were trying to say yeah you're concurring with the labc which will ensure the facade complies with appropriate legislation and therefore one would assume your contractual obligations you see that

00:06:13 contractual obligations you see that i do yes yeah why have you ignored all of bohmer and kirkland and wintec comments about the fact that kingspan's test results

00:06:24 test results to bs 8414 part 1 were irrelevant to the compliance of this very different system why have you ignored that in this letter well i think they've they've highlighted that

00:06:35 that previously and we've just followed it up with a secondary letter in relation to our comments so i can only assume we thought those concerns were highlighted to the client

00:06:48 concerns were highlighted to the client sorry you can only assume that the concerns were highlighted to the client i think the the concerns of wintec was with was not the email from wintec also addressed to to this gentleman so you're saying it

00:07:00 to this gentleman so you're saying it that was dealt with separately in the email that's that's that's the only thing of course i can think of why we didn't mention it in here if that was the case yes might i suggest that the reason you didn't mention it is that their concerns

00:07:11 didn't mention it is that their concerns were

00:07:11 were absolutely pertinent you didn't have any relevant test evidence to support the use of k-15 on this system did you i concur with the comments made by wintec actually we're just

00:07:23 wintec actually we're just adding additional information here but yes i agree

00:07:30 i want to move now to ask you about the bba certificate for k-15 which was first issued in october 2008. so around the same time that uh this has

00:07:42 so around the same time that uh this has all been

00:07:44 all been discussed and written over and at paragraph 7.1 on page 40 of your statement we don't need to go to it you confirm that it was you who kick-started the project to obtain bba certification for k-15 is that right

00:07:57 bba certification for k-15 is that right i would have had the initial meeting or or

00:08:00 or telephone conversation with the uh with the sales manager the bba at the time yes yeah

00:08:09 and in terms of the purpose and importance of obtaining that certificate you explain that in your witness statement where you explain that without a bba certificate many architects would be reluctant to specify a particular

00:08:20 be reluctant to specify a particular product because of the lack of it that's right isn't it that's correct i mean historically i mean i've been in the industry for a while like initially the the purpose of the bba certificates was

00:08:31 certificates was to assess products that weren't covered by a british standard yeah and then obviously it it moved on to be uh accrediting systems etc but it was a a requirement generally

00:08:42 etc but it was a a requirement generally from architects and historically as well the bba certificate would was a document that was deemed to satisfy building regulations but obviously they actually dropped that reference um

00:08:54 they actually dropped that reference um at the beginning of the century i believe

00:08:55 believe right yeah and you tell us in that same paragraph of your statement that the bba for

00:09:01 for certificate facilitated wider specification by architects and was a very important from a marketing and technical perspective would you

00:09:10 would you you agree with that certainly from a technical perspective it was it was a necessity by and requirement from architects and building controls to agree with regards

00:09:21 building controls to agree with regards to the marketing benefits of it um i'm sure that the marketing team would concur that it is a benefit because people ask for it yeah yes

00:09:30 yes before we come to look at that bba certificate from october 08 i just want to put to you something that mr meredith said in his evidence if we can go to the transcript day 76 page 12

00:09:42 day 76 page 12 and i want to pick it up around line six so um this is where we're discussing the

00:09:53 so um this is where we're discussing the bba certificate and i say this what i'm going to suggest to you is that far from any of this wording ever being an oversight in fact the wording was always very carefully checked by kingspan and they pushed as hard as they

00:10:05 kingspan and they pushed as hard as they could to get the most favorable wording for the its sales of its product would you agree with that and and the answer mr meredith gives is i would agree

00:10:15 agree that was always the case that it was always the case that the bba certificate was intrinsic to any sales so it was very important that the text

00:10:23 text within it was suitable for the marketplaces we were in so yes and then i say but it's more potent than that isn't it it's possible you're trying to push sorry

00:10:34 sorry it's that you're trying to push the bba as far as possible to say things that are going to maximize the sales of k-15 even if they're not true that's right isn't it

00:10:45 isn't it and then mr meredith answers that's what we were doing yes now i want to ask you about whether you agree with that would you agree that you pushed the bba

00:10:56 would you agree that you pushed the bba as far as possible to say things that were going to maximize the sales of k-15 even if they were not true i don't believe that that to be the case we we had

00:11:07 we we had a relationship with the bba like any manufacturer you had an opportunity to afford your comments in relation to the drafts now the bba you know what's seen and are

00:11:19 now the bba you know what's seen and are seen as

00:11:20 seen as the deans of the industry you know they can either accept the alternative wording that you you uh put

00:11:27 put in the drafts or they don't but you know they

00:11:31 they they are seen as the the experts in the fields

00:11:34 fields yes but that's not an answer to my question what i want to ask you is what kingspan we're doing about this bba certificate and i want to know whether you agree with mr meredith

00:11:45 you agree with mr meredith when he accepted that kingspan was trying to push the bba as far as possible to say things that were going to maximize the sales of k-15 even if they were not true no i don't agree we

00:11:56 agree we like i say we provided we were asked for an opportunity or were given an opportunity to put forward text or any amendments to the certificates you know it was up to the bba as the

00:12:07 you know it was up to the bba as the experts to decide whether they accepted that

00:12:10 that those amendments to the draft or not i don't think i don't agree with these comments there that we we push them to the nth degree now

00:12:19 now i see so you said we were given an opportunity to put forward any text an amendment it was up to the bba as experts to decide whether they accepted that

00:12:27 that do you accept that at times you were putting forward statements about k-15 which were not entirely accurate in relation to

00:12:39 entirely accurate in relation to its fire performance um [Music]

00:12:43 [Music] again with with you know with hindsight and and reflection you know we submitted information but again we'd you know we'd be looking at the bba to interpret that

00:12:56 at the bba to interpret that accordingly they'd either accept that information or they wouldn't you say with hindsight and reflection what i'm putting to you is that at the time

00:13:04 time you knew full well that you were pushing the bba to make statements that you knew were not entirely true at the time we probably weren't aware of that at the time

00:13:20 that at the time can you help us as to whether the bba were ever informed that there'd been a transfer

00:13:26 transfer to new technology k15 in 2006

00:13:32 um i wouldn't have or didn't formally advise them but the reason being that you know the bba would audit our facility

00:13:42 facility every 12 weeks three months or so and would look through all the factory production control data and they would know there was alternative suppliers they would know the machine had been

00:13:53 the machine had been changed to incorporate new technology so from a

00:13:56 from a technical services aspect we would have thought that the bba would have would have

00:14:01 have fully appreciated those changes to the technology i see you know they're looking did you ever tell the bba that what was being sold to the public was a different k-15 to the k-15 which passed the large-scale

00:14:13 to the k-15 which passed the large-scale fire test in 2005. uh we didn't but they would have known we'd change technology well so you expected them to somehow work out

00:14:23 work out that that 2005 test was on a different product

00:14:27 product i don't think it worked out during the course of the audits they would have been informed by the uh the processing department of the changes in the technology when they looked at the uh the

00:14:38 when they looked at the uh the manufacturing of the product they would see a change in the technology that we'd adopted

00:14:43 adopted so i i would have i would have thought the bba would fully aware of the change of technology that we'd adopted at that time

00:14:51 time did you ever tell the bba that the new technology phenolic was performing very different enough differently in a fire situation

00:14:58 situation to old technology k15 did you ever tell them that

00:15:02 them that not at that time i don't believe we did did you ever tell them that tests on the new

00:15:06 new technology k15 had shown a quicker time to ignition and double the heat output no we didn't but at the time we didn't feel it was relevant or we didn't feel

00:15:18 feel it was relevant or we didn't feel with the need to actually tell the bba at that time that those tests had failed when we applied for the bba certificate no did you ever tell the bba that new technology k15 had been incorporated in

00:15:29 technology k15 had been incorporated in four tests to 841 for part two none of which passed all of which failed and none of which could be classified to be r135

00:15:38 be r135 and not to my knowledge

00:15:42 let's look at the wording of the certificate that was issued in october 2008 this is at bba six zeros 38.

00:15:54 six zeros 38. so this is issue one it's on the 27th of october 2008 that it was issued we see that in the bottom left hand corner and then under key factors

00:16:04 factors assessed we can see three topics down in bold text it says behavior in relation to fire do you see that there yes i do

00:16:15 do you see that there yes i do and it says the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard

00:16:22 hazard do you see that there i do yes now leaving aside the smoke and toxic hazard can you tell me what those words mean will not contribute to the development stages of a fire

00:16:33 i think that's a standard format but i believe it's in relation to you know the product is a thermoset material

00:16:40 material will not melt or run in when affected by heat i think that's what the inference is there

00:16:51 is there did you think that was correct when you read it

00:16:54 read it given what you'd seen of k-15's performance once the new tech came in i think in relation to the early development stages of a fire that that's probably true in the early

00:17:07 that that's probably true in the early development of a fire what test evidence did you have to base that upon

00:17:13 that upon um i don't know what test evidence that had the bba had in relation to that statement but it was i think a reflection of a lot of certificates in relation to thermoset materials

00:17:26 if we go to section seven now which starts at the bottom of page five this is the section that deals in detail with k15's fire performance at section seven we have a description

00:17:38 at section seven we have a description of the system that was tested to eight four one four part one in 2002 uh sorry in 2005. do you see that there yes i do but the date of the test is not given

00:17:49 given can you help us as to why that was it doesn't say that was may 2005 that test i have no idea what i have no recollection of why that wouldn't have been in and

00:18:02 why that wouldn't have been in and whether it was in other certificates for other products as well whether the i don't know if the bba dated them in other certificates if we then go to the final words under that first bullet point

00:18:14 that first bullet point we can see starting three lines up on right on the right hand side it says within the stated test time the temperature at the level t thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees c

00:18:24 c therefore displaying limited fire spread away from the fire source and that the product

00:18:29 product meets the criteria stated within bre-135 do you see that there i do yes now we've agreed haven't we that no product can meet the criteria stated within br135 can it it's a system test correct yes

00:18:42 it's a system test correct yes so do you agree that that was misleading in that certificate i don't know if it's misleading or just an oversight but it's you know we're we're very much a system

00:18:54 a system test business you know we're only a component within a wall roof or floor so yeah i think that that would just be that we're doing an oversight at the time

00:19:03 time but it was also fundamentally misleading wasn't it because by this time in october 2008 you knew that the k-15 was behaving very differently in fire wasn't it

00:19:15 wasn't it it was misleading i think it was just an emission or an oversight in in what either the bba wrote or we wrote to include in that certificate i don't know i don't think i really do

00:19:27 don't know i don't think i really do though will it mr heath because it might be that the word has been included by way of an oversight but the effect of including it is to give the impression that the product

00:19:38 give the impression that the product has some sort of met some sort of compliance with a bre certificate form i would agree it does yes but i would i would expect a

00:19:50 yes but i would i would expect a an architectural professional reading this to understand that it was a product within a system right thank you yes but even if they understand that what they can't tell from this certificate can they is that you've

00:20:03 certificate can they is that you've changed the product since that test and they're not told that what you've seen is a a worse fire performance once you've changed it wasn't that fundamental information that

00:20:15 wasn't that fundamental information that the bba should have been aware of and anybody reading that certificate should have also been aware of um certainly i come back to my previous answer i do i believe the bba were aware we changed

00:20:27 i believe the bba were aware we changed technologies um with regards to the end use or the the enquirer of the architect yes i agree with you yeah the bba might be aware you've changed technologies but unless you tell

00:20:39 changed technologies but unless you tell them

00:20:40 them that the performance in fire is very different they wouldn't know that would they wouldn't no but no i'm not sure if they would have made a judgment

00:20:52 would have made a judgment as well in that respect but you're right yes

00:20:55 yes well there was no test evidence provided to the bba was there that would have enabled them to make that judgment they weren't provided with the 2007 and 2008 failed tests were they

00:21:06 tests were they no they were no or any of the small-scale tests that mr meredith had done that showed a quicker ignition time and double the heat output they weren't provided with that either were they uh we did not provide them with no and what

00:21:17 we did not provide them with no and what i'm putting to you is that was very important information about the behavior in relation to fire of this performance that kingspan deliberately withheld from the bba

00:21:28 the bba i don't believe we deliberately held it from the bba i just at that time i don't feel we felt it was important or relevant to do so in

00:21:40 important or relevant to do so in relation to this particular certificate if we go to section 7.3 on page six we can see that it reads

00:21:51 in buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder now do you agree that that clause was seen as very advantageous to kingspan as

00:22:03 seen as very advantageous to kingspan as being included in this certificate because it meant that kingspan would get it an in to over 18 meter projects to be able to sell it its product

00:22:14 sell it its product i can see why someone would believe that yes and mr mills has told it in his all and written evidence that um that wording was inserted because the

00:22:27 wording was inserted because the kingspan wanted the bba to omit some standard wording from the certificate that said that the product definitely could not be used on buildings with a floor above 18 meters

00:22:38 buildings with a floor above 18 meters did you know that at the time not that i recall

00:22:48 in your statement if we look at paragraph um 7.35 on page 48.

00:23:00 you say having reviewed this statement in preparation of this witness statement i note that the bba certificate should have said that the system rather than the product meets the criteria stated within br135 although i was not

00:23:11 stated within br135 although i was not aware of this error at the time the bba certificate was issued now does that remain your evidence that you weren't aware of that error prior to preparing your

00:23:23 of that error prior to preparing your witness statement for this inquiry

00:23:33 based on my memory at the time of the uh of

00:23:36 of writing that statement and what's your memory now were you aware at an earlier time that the

00:23:43 the certificate should have said that the system rather than the product met the criteria

00:23:48 criteria i i can't recall what my what my opinion was

00:23:53 was at the time whether it should have said system or product but but it surely it would have said system but yeah i can't recall

00:24:05 yeah i can't recall you say a paragraph 7.21 of your statement on page 44 if we could go to that

00:24:15 you say the bba was responsible for drafting the technical content of the certificate although we would provide input for the bba's consideration in relation to the k-15 bba certificate when a draft was received gareth mills

00:24:27 when a draft was received gareth mills would circulate it internally for comment and together with others i would provide my comments any comments i had these would then be collated do you see that there yes i do and presumably that did happen with the very first issue

00:24:38 with the very first issue of the certificate that we just looked at

00:24:42 at i believe so that that will be the the normal format yes and is it your evidence that you somehow missed that fundamental um point about whether it could apply to a system or a product did you just miss

00:24:54 a system or a product did you just miss that at the time i can't recall whether it was just messed up or yeah i just can't recall let's look at an email from from around this time kin3024474

00:25:09 from around this time kin3024474 it's dated the 27th of june 2008.

00:25:19 k i n 3 0's 2 4 4 7 4.

00:25:26 i think it was disclosed today

00:25:30 is it not on there you've got it oh sorry

00:25:33 sorry i'm so sorry here we go um 27th of june 2008

00:25:40 2008 to gareth mills and you from iva meredith do you see that there yes i do

00:25:47 yes i do and he says justif confirm i've sorted everything with warrington fire that's in in line one and then

00:25:58 that's in in line one and then the same applies to k-15 incidentally we should be getting the cavity barrier data off mark stevens on monday as well and then he says this i may be opening a can of worms here but are there any other issues in respect of fire in the

00:26:10 other issues in respect of fire in the bba

00:26:11 bba i've seen the bba draft for k-15 and the restrictions on use above 18 meters if this gets published it would be a disaster

00:26:20 disaster realistically how much long have we got before it's ready to be issued i believe that this is one situation where we do not want to go to print unless we have the bs 8414 part 2 information

00:26:32 8414 part 2 information and then he says this i know the original plan was to slip the existing 8414 data in at the last minute so they didn't have much time to look over it and pick holes however i believe it would be foolish of

00:26:44 however i believe it would be foolish of us to think that they wouldn't go over it with a fine tooth comb in respect to the current industry issues about the 18 meter rule and any insulation product do you see that there i do yes so um

00:26:56 do you see that there i do yes so um you appear to be being told by iva at the time that there's a plan to slip the existing 8414 data in at the last minute so they presumably that's the bba yes

00:27:07 so they presumably that's the bba yes didn't have much time to over look over it and pick holes you see that there means the bba yes do you remember that plan being formulated to do that with that

00:27:18 being formulated to do that with that first certificate i have no recollection of that i'm afraid no

00:27:22 no no can you remember going back to mr meredith and saying no that's not the plan we mustn't do that that would be inappropriate

00:27:33 no i mean gareth was gareth was managing the project but i i can't recall as a decision being made to that respect yeah can we look at another email from

00:27:46 yeah can we look at another email from a little bit later in july 2008

00:27:51 kin3024476

00:27:57 this is you to gareth mills friday the 11th of july 2008 and

00:28:05 2008 and this is comments on draft one and you say all suggests we try to amend the wording below as detailed remove block work and insert non-combustible might allow us to use a little spin

00:28:16 little spin in future do you see that there i do yes so we've got the word spin again what did you mean by might allow us to use a little spin in future mr heath i suppose as mentioned before it's

00:28:29 i suppose as mentioned before it's although it was on a a non-combustible or on a brickwork backing we were using the the phrase out of the other

00:28:40 using the the phrase out of the other standard in relation to non-combustible substrates could be assumed to be other materials

00:28:48 i see but why didn't you want to keep in the word block work given that that was more accurate wasn't it it was more precise

00:28:55 precise it was and as i said in my statement it was to give us a greater scope

00:29:02 [Applause] now after the publication of the first version of the certificate the bba wrote to kingspan around two months later on the 24th of december 2008 proposing to amend

00:29:15 december 2008 proposing to amend the wording on k15 and its fire performance do you remember that

00:29:22 uh yes i do let's look at that this is kin

00:29:25 kin zeros

00:29:30 and we go on to page two there's an email from george lee of the bba dated the 24th of december 2008.

00:29:41 dated the 24th of december 2008. and he says to gareth mills hi gareth we've recently received a number of comments on the k-15 certificate in relation to the clarity of wording used as part of this certificate's far section

00:29:53 section and then he says in response to this we have we have suggested a suggested amendment to the text which we wish to make this amendment will be at no cost to yourselves and as an improvement to the certificate which i hope you will agree

00:30:05 certificate which i hope you will agree will improve how this certificate will read in the future and then you can see the changes he proposes in the second bullet point under key factors assessed behavior in relation to fire um

00:30:17 behavior in relation to fire um what he's proposing to add is the product has been tested to bs 84141 for a specific construction on masonry walls do you see that there i do yes

00:30:34 at that time did you consider there to be anything incorrect about that proposed amendment by mr lee i think i responded to to george lee

00:30:45 i think i responded to to george lee in relation to this and from memory and looking at contemporaneous documents he actually wrote back and he commented that these were minor changes

00:30:56 commented that these were minor changes so yes that's not my question at the time did you consider there to be anything

00:31:01 anything incorrect about what mr lee was proposing there uh fundamentally no no it's entirely correct

00:31:08 correct wasn't it correct and a better description of the the system that had been tested for a specific construction on masonry walls you see that i do

00:31:26 now did that prompt you to go back and read the certificate the first issue of the certificate carefully now we would have cross-referenced those amendments seven point two two and

00:31:39 those amendments seven point two two and seven one point one etcetera and the two bullet points above we would reference that back yes let's look at your response to mr lee which you sent on the 5th of march

00:31:50 which you sent on the 5th of march 2009 so it's um at page one in the same string so he writes to you on the 24th of december 2008. and you respond on the 5th of

00:32:01 2008. and you respond on the 5th of march 2009. good afternoon george gareth mills has brought to my attention your recent emails in relation to our bba certificate for k-15 firstly may we register our concern at

00:32:13 firstly may we register our concern at the proposal to reissue this certificate so soon after publication when we've waited some considerable time for its issue do you see that there i do yes and then if you go on secondly your request is receiving our

00:32:25 secondly your request is receiving our attention however we are determining the implications to kingspan of the speedy reissue

00:32:30 reissue as documentation has been published that refers to the current certificate and the wording therein therefore there could be cost implications to kingspan that we would have no option but to pass on to the bba if we're in agreement with

00:32:42 on to the bba if we're in agreement with your request once we've completed our audit to determine the implications for kingspan insulation we will be back to you do you see that there now first point why does it take so many months you don't respond until

00:32:55 so many months you don't respond until the 5th of march 2009 when he's written to you

00:32:58 to you on the 24th of december the previous year can you explain that delay i can't it obviously george wrote to to gareth

00:33:05 gareth i don't know why there was a delay between december and march was it that it was brought to my attention

00:33:13 attention were you stalling because the original certificate wording was very favorable to kingspan and you knew you'd been at least in part found out

00:33:23 found out given the proposed wording that they were

00:33:26 were suggesting in this amendment i don't believe we were stalling um gareth was very busy at the time and i think was published in his pile of emails to uh to

00:33:37 emails to uh to highlight to him so i don't believe gareth sat on this intentionally for three months is it right that the request was receiving your attention at the time

00:33:48 receiving your attention at the time uh it was i was um discussing with our marketing department as to what the implications would be down the tracks of

00:33:56 tracks of of this change why didn't you respond straight away saying you're absolutely right that ought to be clarified

00:34:03 clarified it's an accurate limitation of the system because this is just a system test

00:34:08 test why don't you do that i think because i just wanted clarification of what of what the implication will be on uh on costs

00:34:16 costs we don't you know we don't disagree with the with the bba in that format which was saying i just need time to evaluate with basically which is marketing to see what costs we would incur

00:34:27 costs we would incur changing presentations literature etc with respect mr heath let's go back and look at the first part of the email that's not what you say is it you say firstly may we register our

00:34:38 you say firstly may we register our concern at the proposal to reissue this certificate so soon after publication when we've waited some considerable time for its issue yes you're not saying fair point you've raised

00:34:48 raised you've raised an accurate limitation but we just need to consider the cost consequences you're actually registering concern that they want to amend this certificate no it wasn't concerned that they wanted

00:34:59 no it wasn't concerned that they wanted to amend it it was just the concern that after

00:35:02 after a number of years of of going through the process of k15 they wanted to amend it so soon afterwards i think it was three months or so after it was released so we weren't concerned that the

00:35:14 so we weren't concerned that the the amendments were going around though it's you know you have to accept those by

00:35:18 by by facts so it's just our concern that you know it's been um we're asked to amend it so soon afterwards when i think it's generally three or four years after where

00:35:30 amended rather than just three months so i don't think we had any objections to the

00:35:34 the the revised content it was just the timing of it was so soon after the original

00:35:38 original documents really that's honestly that's your evidence is it your recollection that you didn't have any concerns about the proposed amendment no i wouldn't have any concerns can we

00:35:49 no i wouldn't have any concerns can we go now to kin40s 9103

00:35:56 and at the bottom of page one we'll see a copy of the email you've just sent to

00:36:04 sorry that's george lee's email then one email up we get your email back to him that we've just looked at and then we go to the top of this string you email andrew pack ivan meredith

00:36:17 you email andrew pack ivan meredith gareth mills copying and gwen davis and you say let the file gather dust guys regards phil do you see that i do could you just go back to the email that george lee sent me

00:36:29 email that george lee sent me well in response to mine

00:36:34 i i can't take you back to that at the moment oh right okay because george and i've seen the some documents in relation to this and and george did come back to me and say

00:36:46 and george did come back to me and say these are these are minor amendments to the certificates and now with regards to let the file gather dust that was while i did explore with marketing what

00:36:57 i did explore with marketing what what the implication would were for this so it was just i suppose some slang and wants a better word back to the team to say i was dealing with it and we'd move it forward when i got the information back from marketing in

00:37:09 information back from marketing in relation to the implications i see what we see here is two minutes after you've sent the email to george lee

00:37:17 lee you are emailing your team and telling them to let the file gather dust guys

00:37:24 you were doing that weren't you because you knew the amendments to be much more unfavorable to kingspan that's right isn't it no i don't believe that's the case no you don't believe it's the case i don't

00:37:35 you don't believe it's the case i don't know

00:37:36 know you were stalling for time weren't you because you wanted that certificate to remain in circulation given how favorable it was to kingspan that's right isn't it no i don't believe that's the case so what did you mean when you said let the

00:37:47 what did you mean when you said let the file

00:37:48 file gather dust it was basically i was managed i was going to take it forward like i said discuss with marketing what the implications were to the cost and and also the implications to presentations and other marketing

00:38:00 presentations and other marketing materials we had um and then we would go back to george and i think we did accept those amendments going forward with george

00:38:13 is it right that you considered these amendments to be disruptive because marketing literature had by then been produced by kingspan i don't believe it was disruptive we were just

00:38:25 were just concerned that after 12 weeks of being issued the certificate we were about being asked to amend it i don't think there was

00:38:32 there was no i don't believe so

00:38:37 do you agree that a certificate which said it been tested to 8414 part one for a specific construction on masonry walls would have a very different impact on

00:38:48 would have a very different impact on the end use of the product over 18 meters

00:38:56 i mean that was we were looking at that to extend the scope of the approval yes i agree yeah that that was not a minor amendment was it regardless of what the bba

00:39:08 was it regardless of what the bba said to you that was a major amendment wasn't it to make clear that it was for a specific construction on masonry walls um well they were considering it to a minor

00:39:19 minor amendment like i said i don't think there's any rue on our part to uh to actually stall the amendments of this going through

00:39:30 if we look at paragraph 11.47 on page 81 of your witness statement you say this

00:39:42 of your witness statement you say this as described in paragraph 737 above in 2009 i instructed members of my team not to proactively respond to the bba's request for amendments to be made to the october 2008 king k15

00:39:53 to be made to the october 2008 king k15 bba certificate and then you say this i did not consider this to be a policy or strategy of delay in terms of the compliance testing and or certification of k-15 in

00:40:04 testing and or certification of k-15 in order to continue to be able to supply and or promote k-15 for use do you see that there yes i do what distinction are you drawing between a deliberate strategy of delay

00:40:16 a deliberate strategy of delay and an instruction not to proactively respond

00:40:19 respond can you help us with that

00:40:23 sorry can you ask the question again sorry

00:40:26 sorry you're saying in the first two lines that you instructed members of your team not to proactively respond do you see that i do yes so you're denying that that was a policy or

00:40:37 denying that that was a policy or strategy

00:40:38 strategy of delay and i want to understand how you're saying that i think i think basically i'm fearing there that i've with regards to uh this amendment that i'm taking it forward

00:40:52 i'm taking it forward that i i'll obviously gareth passed it to me

00:40:57 to me so it's probably instructed by members of the team predominantly gareth and the rest of the team that i wouldn't be i would be handling it and they shouldn't request shouldn't be offering to offer the

00:41:09 shouldn't be offering to offer the amendments it was a single point contact with the bba basically i see so it was in hand with myself i don't there was anything to say proactively is perhaps the wrong word

00:41:20 proactively is perhaps the wrong word but

00:41:21 but the team not to respond to the bba are you aware that in fact it was not until july 2013 that mr lee's proposed amendments made it into a published bba certificate

00:41:32 made it into a published bba certificate for k-15

00:41:34 for k-15 uh only through contemporaneous documents that i've seen that so i wasn't aware previously

00:41:41 i want to ask you now some questions about the labc system approval certificate which was obtained by kingspan for k-15 and was issued in may 2009 so shortly after this

00:41:56 if we can start by looking at that certificate it's at kin-405705

00:42:07 this is the first page here we can see the certificate holder is kingspan insulation there and the system title is kingspan call firm k15 rain screen

00:42:18 call firm k15 rain screen board in section two do you see that yes i do and if we go over the page to page three there we see a section overview

00:42:32 it calls them as a rigid phenolic insulation board incorporating four composite

00:42:37 composite facings intended for use as a thermal insulation layer do you see that there yes and then

00:42:46 if we go on to the fourth page under the heading requirement b for safety considerations

00:42:54 it says there k-15 has been tested in accordance with and then we've got bs 8414 part 1 2002. do you see that there yes i do now that would be the 2005

00:43:06 would be the 2005 test wouldn't it to part one that's correct

00:43:09 correct yeah which had been done on old technology k15 hadn't it correct so that was no longer relevant to new technology k15 was it

00:43:22 no not fundamentally no not not at all no

00:43:26 no was it

00:43:30 and then we get two british standard en1364 fire resistance test for load-bearing elements and then we get bs 476 part 6 and 476

00:43:44 and then we get bs 476 part 6 and 476 part

00:43:44 part 7. those are the tests that are relevant to national class naught aren't they that's correct

00:43:55 that's correct and were those part six tests for k-15 in its new technology configuration they couldn't have been

00:44:06 configuration they couldn't have been could they because you were struggling to get those

00:44:10 that's correct it would have still been in relation to um the kestrel results pre-kestering results

00:44:18 results is that what you mean yeah i mean the results that came out of the the test test at kestrel yeah and then well i'm sorry are we talking about new technology or old technology

00:44:30 about new technology or old technology and new technology or the the technology that came out of kestrel stroke marek produced in holland yes but you told us earlier tested in

00:44:41 yes but you told us earlier tested in england

00:44:42 england no well that wasn't sure where it had been that i wasn't sure where it'd been tested it could have been in a a dutch laboratory or a uk laboratory right but not produced from the

00:44:54 right but not produced from the production facility in this country that's correct sorry yeah no that's fine and then below that

00:45:03 that we see a list of um below that list of test method methods we see this sentence from the results

00:45:11 results it can be considered as a material of limited combustibility and meets the criteria for class naught classification for surface spread of flame do you see that there yes i do so it's being said it can be considered

00:45:22 so it's being said it can be considered a material of limited combustibility and meet the criteria for class naught just looking at that sentence now do you agree that the most natural reading of it is that k-15 can be considered to be

00:45:33 it is that k-15 can be considered to be a material of limited combustibility uh no i mean we've never said it's a material of limited combustibility and there's no test method method listed in relation to that

00:45:44 relation to that and i'm assuming this just relates to as within the system within the 8414 test it's considered a material of limited combustibility when considered within the overall

00:45:56 when considered within the overall assembly

00:45:58 assembly how do you get to that mr heath how do you how do you get a limited combustibility product out of

00:46:06 of an 8414 test on a different product to the one you're selling well i think in that in that relationship is a system approval the 841 with its old or new

00:46:19 approval the 841 with its old or new technology aside i think just as the as a it is a system approval and obviously within that system approval and and the construction we tested

00:46:30 tested that they're considering that the material is of limited combustibility within that system and everything else combined within it but that just makes no sense does it because we know that the tests

00:46:42 because we know that the tests to get limited combustibility are very different tests much more onerous tests small scale tester bs 476 part 11 or under the european classification

00:46:53 or under the european classification system en13501 you'd have to get a1 or a2 you told us you knew that that's correct at the outset of your evidence that's correct so can you explain why you didn't the

00:47:04 so can you explain why you didn't the moment you saw this immediately right back to the labc and say

00:47:11 say there's a mistake here this is wrong you can't

00:47:15 can't state that it's considered a material limit combustibility or even imply that it is because it isn't why didn't you do that i think again we just thought they were considering it

00:47:26 thought they were considering it as within an overall system that the whole system was non-combustible it could be considered a system that's non-combustible it wasn't relation to the board we were

00:47:37 relation to the board we were considering the whole system but do you agree that it would lead readers to believe that k-15 itself was a material of limited combustibility as defined in approved document b

00:47:48 defined in approved document b i think potentially it could be seen that way yes yes yes if we go on to page five to the top of the page in the next section requirement b for external file spread

00:48:02 requirement b for external file spread it says this since k-15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility it is suitable for use in all situations shown on diagram 40 of approved document b volume 2 including those parts of a building more

00:48:14 including those parts of a building more than 18 metres above ground in the latter circumstances the cladding system and the substrate to which the insulation is applied must also meet the requirement for limited combustibility

00:48:26 limited combustibility do you see that there i do yes now would you agree with me that that makes it even clearer that what this certificate is conveying is that k-15 is a material of limited combustibility i can see why people would think that

00:48:40 i can see why people would think that now

00:48:40 now yes i can see that by that but again we were looking at it within a system and as they mentioned there in the latter circumstances the cladding system and the substrate they're also mentioned must also be

00:48:51 they're also mentioned must also be limited combustibility so i i can see why that's being considered yes are you saying that at the time you first saw this certificate

00:49:04 this certificate you didn't think that readers could take from it that k15 was a material of limited combustibility is that your evidence

00:49:11 evidence on reflection i can i can see that now at the time we didn't because there's other tests we do around the world where you know all the material is it's

00:49:22 you know all the material is it's combustible all the materials we produce are combustible there's aspects where some test houses and insurance companies see see the whole thing as as non-combustible if it passes a certain

00:49:33 non-combustible if it passes a certain test

00:49:34 test so that's the way we were thinking that it was a

00:49:37 it was a it was a system test and within that it was seen as non-combustible if used within those parameters that's really how you saw it at the time is it i believe it was yes

00:49:54 it's right isn't it that as technical manager you held overall responsibility for certification by the labc of k15 yes uh yeah we had a project team

00:50:05 yes uh yeah we had a project team andrew pack run the project for me and i had overall responsibility for it yes and it was you who took the decision to approach herefordshire labc

00:50:18 approach herefordshire labc for certification in the first place that's right isn't it uh following consultations with with the marketing and the sales and business development it was it was seen as as a route forward we previously worked with

00:50:30 we previously worked with heritage council on on other labc system approvals let's look at paragraph 8.16 of your witness statement at page 59

00:50:42 you tell us there that you attended you can recall one meeting with the herefordshire council building control department which was held at the kingspan offices in pembridge

00:50:54 in pembridge the meeting i recall was a kickoff meeting for the project of obtaining k15 labc

00:50:58 labc system approval i do not recall the meeting in detail but andrew pratt would have been in attendance as the person leading on the project so it's right isn't it that you and andrew pack had a meeting

00:51:09 pack had a meeting with herefordshire council building control department at kingspan's offices in pembridge yes yes i believe it was in pembroke yes from memory i think there was just three

00:51:21 from memory i think there was just three of us in attendance

00:51:25 that was my next question can you recall whether anyone else from kingspan attended that meeting or was it just you and mr pat i believe you know trying to recall it i believe it was just myself andrew and a gentleman from the

00:51:37 myself andrew and a gentleman from the labc in hereford and can you help us as to when that meeting took place

00:51:46 i think i think it was post the bba certificate but i i i couldn't be sure the exact date of when that meeting was so after october 08 but before may 09

00:51:59 october 08 but before may 09 i'll be i'd be guessing but i'm assuming so yes yeah there you describe it there as a kickoff meeting can you recall whether there are any other meetings at any time prior to the issue of the labc

00:52:10 prior to the issue of the labc certificate in may 09 um i i don't recall i had another meeting

00:52:17 meeting with labc i'm not sure whether andrew had another meeting with the labc or not um

00:52:24 um in hereford he may have done but i certainly was only party to that first meeting i believe at that meeting is it right that you and mr pat met with david jones who was a

00:52:36 mr pat met with david jones who was a building control surveyor with herefordshire council who would be the eventual author of the certificate for k-15 i knew it was a david i can't i can't recall his surname

00:52:47 recall his surname yeah and you tell us in your statement for the transcript this is at paragraph 8.8 on page 57 that the purpose of kingspan obtaining a system approval from the labc

00:52:59 system approval from the labc was to facilitate and increase the sale of k15 over 18 meters and generally aid the products credibility in the market do you agree with that

00:53:10 i do but also it was to help it because we get

00:53:14 we get we got a lot of questions in relation to building control and i think in it was also to facilitate its um

00:53:23 route through various building control departments as well because obviously the regulations are open to interpretation so it was seen as a way forward or labc system approvals per

00:53:34 way forward or labc system approvals per se is seen as to facilitating a way forward through building control yeah and it was a way forward for the over 18 meter market wasn't it it certainly covered the over 18 market

00:53:45 it certainly covered the over 18 market yes yeah

00:53:50 we've got the recollections of mr jones in his witness statement which i'd like to take you to now this is hbc

00:53:57 is hbc 6029 at page 10.

00:54:06 and if we could just read start with reading the top paragraph on this page he says

00:54:12 he says the kingspan representatives gave an overview of the product and its properties and how where it was intended to be used in particular the technical representatives were enthusiastic about the fire testing that kingspan had commissioned for k-15

00:54:24 commissioned for k-15 and the fact that it had been shown to be suitable for use in buildings with stories over 18 meters do you see that there i do yes and do you remember that do you remember being enthusiastic about the fire

00:54:35 being enthusiastic about the fire testing that king spanner commissioned and that it had been shown to be suitable for use in buildings with stories over 18 meters i can't recall being enthusiastic but

00:54:47 i can't recall being enthusiastic but i can recall the meeting but

00:54:51 well what what fire testing might you have been talking about forget enthusiastic for a moment what fire testing

00:54:58 testing did you talk to them about that showed that

00:55:01 that it was suitable for use in buildings with stories over 18 meters obviously we provided them with the uh the 2005

00:55:10 the 2005 accreditation and and the bba certificate and the um i think that one of the tests maybe

00:55:17 maybe yes but mr heath you knew that that 2005 test by that time couldn't be relied on for a number of reasons

00:55:26 reasons including the fact that the new technology was now what was being sold didn't you on reflection yes yes and you knew that the fire performance was very different did you ever tell mr jones that not that i'm aware no no

00:55:41 mr jones that not that i'm aware no no did you ever tell him about the failed 8414 tests in 2007 and 2008. not to my knowledge no did you tell him about the increased

00:55:53 about the increased heat output and the quicker time to ignition of the new technology k15 we didn't because we're still obviously working on that on that development so no i didn't did

00:56:04 on that development so no i didn't did you tell him that you were now selling a different product that you were still doing fire testing on to try and ascertain its true performance uh no we didn't

00:56:16 true performance uh no we didn't i'll say earlier you know the fire test continues

00:56:19 continues even the present day we're undertaking fire tests but no we didn't no if you look at the second paragraph he says i asked what kingspan hoped to achieve from the labc type approval process

00:56:30 process given the supporting information they already had in the form of test results and a bba certificate the response was that it was very much a marketing aim to have the labc brand associated with their product and

00:56:41 brand associated with their product and they wanted the opportunity to further emphasize the suitability of k15 in buildings over 18 meters again for marketing purposes do you see that there i do yes do you

00:56:52 do you see that there i do yes do you recall emphasizing the suitability of k15 for use in buildings over 18 meters uh i don't recall emphasizing it but obviously we the approval we were looking for was you

00:57:05 the approval we were looking for was you know

00:57:05 know both above and below 18 meters but i don't

00:57:09 don't regard i don't remember emphasizing it as such

00:57:21 during the meeting did you tell him at any time that 8414 was a system test and you'd only tested one system and gave him the details of the system you tested

00:57:32 system you tested from memory and from documents i've seen i think we we only provided him we provided him with that 8414 test report did you explain that that test data

00:57:43 did you explain that that test data would only be relevant if the same build up of the same materials was replicated precisely on a building

00:57:50 building i can't recall whether we would have said that or not

00:57:58 in a statement if we go up to page five of this statement in the penultimate paragraph mr jones has made clear at the time if

00:58:11 mr jones has made clear at the time if we look at the third line down he says if we could blow up the bottom of that page sorry

00:58:18 he says this third line down i had no training specific to the use of materials in buildings over 18 meters or in the testing and certification of building products and materials do you see that there and he

00:58:31 do you see that there and he goes on and says please note there were no buildings with stories over 18 meters in herefordshire for me to gain any on-the-job training in areas of design relevant to such buildings

00:58:41 buildings when you met him did mr jones reveal his lack of experience in dealing with buildings over 18 meters do you remember discussing that with him i don't recall a conversation of that no did his lack of experience in

00:58:54 of that no did his lack of experience in this area become apparent to you at any stage during the meeting not at all

00:59:01 now you've said in your statement that you can't recall exactly what documents were provided and it would likely have been andrew pack who provided any additional documentation

00:59:15 at this point can we look at an email you send

00:59:18 you send um it's kin3020714

00:59:28 if we go to the bottom email in the chain

00:59:33 chain you send an email to various technical services

00:59:38 services addresses together with other named individuals labc system approval certificate is the heading for cool phone k15 7th of may 2009

00:59:48 2009 great news please find attached local authority building control approval for k15 range screen board and then you explain

00:59:56 explain what it is what labc approval is and then under benefits one paragraph down you say having a building type housing commercial or industrial or a

01:00:07 housing commercial or industrial or a complete building element a system approved by labc means that it can be used without the full plans approval process happening repetitively around the country at each site this saves time and money for developers designers

01:00:18 money for developers designers engineers contractors and builders and then you say the highlight of this certificate and supporting documentation is the requirement under b4 external fire spread and then you set out what it says

01:00:30 out what it says and you and you highlight in bold the words material of limit combustibility do you see that i do yes and at the end of that paragraph you say nb this statement does not differ from

01:00:41 nb this statement does not differ from anything

01:00:41 anything k-i-l states do you see that there i do yes

01:00:46 yes what did you mean by that sentence again i just

01:00:49 i just it's i mean a lot of that is cut and pasted from the labc website the first two paragraphs i believe but with regards to um the statement does not differ

01:01:00 um the statement does not differ anything kil states again it's reference to the product within that system was that was tested you know we'd never have said the materials of limited combustibility

01:01:11 materials of limited combustibility either in

01:01:13 either in uh in that technical advice on our literature um

01:01:21 no that's right you hadn't ever said before that the material was of limited combustibility no simply couldn't have said that could you no but i think with the inference here within that tested system

01:01:33 well it doesn't say that does it it doesn't no and that's that's an oversight but as a as a business

01:01:41 business you know we know the material is not of limited combustibility sorry did you just say that the inclusion of these words was an oversight

01:01:53 an oversight no what i'm saying is is the statement doesn't differ from anything kil states and that that does differ but what what i was trying to get across there is that within a system in the

01:02:06 there is that within a system in the tested system it could be considered as that material of limited comfort stability where had kingsman said that before

01:02:18 i think just the inference of testing it within that system is that it you know if you look at the uh the adb

01:02:26 the adb you know you're either non-combustible or you're a combustible product and once you've got to the end or a combustible system of course a product shall say but once you've got through the various stage gates of the 8414

01:02:38 8414 you're then into the same area as a non-combustible insulation and follow and follow those paths with respect mr heat that is not what approved document b says does it it does

01:02:49 approved document b says does it it does not say

01:02:50 not say if you've got a product that's been in a successful 8414 test you can then separately claim that that product is of limited combustion i'm not saying that and as i said within the overall aspects of

01:03:01 as i said within the overall aspects of the system i think that the labc felt within that system

01:03:06 system tested it could be considered as a material of non-combustibility i don't i don't believe they thought the phenolic

01:03:13 phenolic cool them was a material of limited combustibility because we hadn't done the

01:03:18 the 476 appropriate 476 test i see

01:03:25 just going on with your email you thank mr pack for his consistent endeavors in driving this forward if we go below we may need to go to the top of the next page

01:03:37 you say k-15 remains the only installation board that successfully met the requirements of the bba and labc system approval all the relevant documents surrounding it are attached

01:03:49 documents surrounding it are attached special thanks go to andrew pack for his consistent endeavors driving this forward with the labc and for the time being this should complete the tool kit for k-15 rain screen

01:03:58 screen board in the event you require further information on this please contact either andrew or myself to see that there i do yes and then if we move up the same document to mr

01:04:11 if we move up the same document to mr rochford's email response to you after you've sent this

01:04:16 he says this so it's just to you out of curiosity which fire test result did we use to get this

01:04:27 did we use to get this so mr watchful is obviously not clear what fire test results you've used to get that

01:04:32 get that and your response to him is this we can be very convincing when we need to be we threw every bit of fire test data we could at him we probably blocked his server in the end i think the labc

01:04:44 end i think the labc convinced themselves cool them is the best thing since sliced bread we didn't he didn't even have to get any real ale down him exclamation mark

01:04:55 real ale down him exclamation mark now i suggest that that response to mr rochford entirely supports what we see earlier in the email that you knew there wasn't any test data

01:05:07 you knew there wasn't any test data to support the limited combustibility statement

01:05:11 statement but effectively you'd managed to pull the wool over his eyes hadn't you no i don't believe that's the case

01:05:22 no i don't believe that's the case what was your response to mr rochford's question because you haven't answered it there

01:05:27 there which fire test results did we use to get this

01:05:31 get this which various results did you use to get a statement from them which said can be considered a material of limited combustibility that's the statement you've said is great news probably rang malcolm or went down to

01:05:42 probably rang malcolm or went down to his office and and informed him of the the information that uh

01:05:47 that uh david at the hereford council went away with

01:05:50 with either various and what was that what was that information that supported it being considered a material of limited combustibility i think it was merely the the fire test that we the 2005 fire test

01:06:02 that we the 2005 fire test and and other data we'd done in relation to uh

01:06:06 to uh to full-scale wall tests that we provided him

01:06:12 did you know at the time that approved document b defined in its appendix materials of limited combustibility including by reference to 476 part 11 or euro tests a1 or a2

01:06:23 476 part 11 or euro tests a1 or a2 no absolutely yes you knew that yes

01:06:28 but you're saying well that it just didn't occur to you that people would read that certificate and think it had passed those tests given the statement that was made

01:06:40 given the statement that was made with hindsight i agree at that time no we didn't because like i say we've done other tests globally where

01:06:49 where an assembly is seen even with a combustible material to be of limited combustibility so we thought it was related to purely the system because it was a system approval

01:07:01 system because it was a system approval you say with hindsight but mr heath we can see

01:07:04 can see you knew full well at the time based on the great news email and you putting in bold just those words a material of limited combustibility you knew that at the time didn't you

01:07:15 knew that at the time didn't you i can see i didn't i can see why people see that now absolutely yes but is that right that at the time you realized it was mistakenly saying it could be considered a material of

01:07:26 it could be considered a material of limited combustibility i knew at that time that it wasn't a product of limited combustibility yes as a standalone product yes and i'm suggesting to you that you knew at the time that certificate was utterly

01:07:37 at the time that certificate was utterly misleading at the time i'd i don't believe it was but

01:07:43 but with on reflection and reading it now i can i can see that yes

01:07:48 if we can look at mr jones's witness statement again hbc6029

01:07:55 hbc6029 page 37

01:08:00 and i want to look at the final paragraph on that page

01:08:07 and he's asked the question if we blow up the bottom of that page he's asked the question as far as you're aware did any employee or ex-employee of kingspan at any stage state that casey 15 was a material of limited combustibility whether verbally or in writing

01:08:19 whether verbally or in writing if so please give full details including the date and the name of any relevant individual information and then he says if this happened it would have been in my initial meeting with kingspan at

01:08:30 in my initial meeting with kingspan at the start of the herefordshire council assessment however i cannot from memory recall exact wording or who said what and so on what basis it would be wrong of me to say that anybody used the specific phrase limited combustibility

01:08:43 specific phrase limited combustibility and then he says this i can say with some certainty however that i left that meeting with the clear impression that this is what k-15 was i recall thinking that this was

01:08:54 i recall thinking that this was consistent with a general opinion among building control surveyors i had known that kingspan products would not really burn

01:09:00 burn but would charge slowly and self-extinguish once the ignition source was removed do you see that there i do see that yes did you ever tell mr jones during that meeting that k15 was a material of limited combustibility

01:09:13 was a material of limited combustibility absolutely not did you ever tell him that the test to bs 8414 in 2005 meant that it could be considered to be a material of limited combustibility

01:09:24 combustibility no i wouldn't have said that now did you ever give mr jones the impression that k15 was suitable for use over 18 meters without qualification

01:09:35 over 18 meters without qualification no i didn't

01:09:39 did you tell mr jones at that meeting or any other time that the only successful test

01:09:43 test 8414 on a system with k15 had been carried out on in may 2005 using old technology k-15 which was no longer being produced or sold

01:09:54 sold that was a certificate that we provided him yes

01:09:59 yes so you agree that the you told him that the

01:10:03 that the only successful test had been carried out in may 2005 using old tech which was no longer being produced or sold did you tell him that i can't recall whether we told him that

01:10:14 i can't recall whether we told him that or not but i'd imagine we just referred back to the 2005 test

01:10:22 do you accept that that would have been relevant information for him to have known on reflection yes together with

01:10:30 with what you had subsequently learned about the five properties of k-15 in 2007 and 2008 [Applause] in relation to the large-scale tests

01:10:44 in relation to the large-scale tests and small-scale testing you'd learned that it had a very different file performance but you didn't tell him that did you we didn't tell him that now

01:10:55 do you accept that your strategy in terms of labc certification was to obtain as broad and wide an approval for k-15 as possible and irrespective of the technical

01:11:07 and irrespective of the technical accuracy of what was stated in that system approval i i think we always wanted to as i said in the state want a wide scope of of approval sorry can you just speak the second part

01:11:18 sorry can you just speak the second part of that yeah do you accept that your strategy in terms of labc certification was to obtain as broad and wide in approval for k-15 as possible irrespective of the technical accuracy

01:11:29 irrespective of the technical accuracy of what was stated in that system approval

01:11:32 approval no i don't i don't agree to the second part but certainly the first part do you accept that you misled mr jones about k-15's fire performance in that

01:11:43 about k-15's fire performance in that meeting

01:11:45 meeting i don't specifically think we misled him no i see mr chairman i think that's a good moment for a break yes very well i'm midway through this

01:11:58 yes very well i'm midway through this topic but we're doing well and i think that would be a good moment for me that's convenient to you we'll have a break now

01:12:04 break now we're gonna have another short break now these days um we'll come back at uh 25 to four please okay and again please discuss more evidence within one

01:12:15 evidence within one okay thank you thank you very much i'd like to give the usher please [Applause]

01:12:28 right 25 to 4 please

01:31:07 would you ask mr heath to come back in

01:31:14 please

01:31:26 right mr teeth we're ready to go on i am thank you very much yes mr strange yes so we were in the middle of discussing the labc certificate from may 2009 and i want to take you now to page 62 of your witness statement

01:31:37 page 62 of your witness statement paragraph 8.26

01:31:43 and you say this although in hindsight i appreciate the intended system specific context of this statement could have been clearer in the labc document

01:31:52 document i consider that this context and intended meaning would have been clear to parties reviewing and relying on the labc system approval

01:32:01 approval as they would have been sophisticated users such as architects and cladding engineers

01:32:06 engineers who would have appreciated that as a phenolic insulation k15 could not be a material of limited combustibility and that the listed test standards were not

01:32:16 not in any case the relevant standards by which limited combustibility could be determined so that that's the position as set out in your witness statement

01:32:27 in your witness statement now can you tell us if i've got this right

01:32:31 right is the position this that now with hindsight you do appreciate that this the certificate could have been clearer is that how you put it

01:32:43 yes but you're not prepared to accept that the certificate was wholly

01:32:52 inaccurate there were improvements that could have been made i don't believe it was wholly inaccurate but there could have been improvements made certainly and those improvements would have been deleted the reference to be

01:33:05 have been deleted the reference to be considered to be a material of limited combustibility absolutely yes yes is it right at the time you had no concerns and considered it would have been clear to sophisticated users

01:33:16 been clear to sophisticated users that the assertions regarding limited combustibility were intended to be made in a system-specific context only is that your evidence

01:33:26 it is yes and is it right that at the time you

01:33:30 time you had no concerns and simply read those sections of the certificate we've been referring to as referring to a system is that right

01:33:41 as referring to a system is that right i believe so yes if that's truly the position

01:33:45 position what was the great news which we saw you announcing to colleagues internally on the 7th of may 2009 what was there to celebrate about a certificate which said nothing more

01:33:57 certificate which said nothing more in your mind at the time than that this product is suitable for use over 18 meters in one particular tested for configuration and no other

01:34:05 no other i think as as part of the you know portfolio of marketing information we had it was important but also at that time it was it was great news and really uh

01:34:18 and really uh a um a pat on the back for andrew pack because he was a he was a very hard worker and he didn't he never got the praise that he deserved he was he was um

01:34:31 that he deserved he was he was um you know he just he just got on with his work and there wasn't that much praise coming towards andrew so it was really an opportunity for me to to praise andrew in in the work that he'd done at the time sorry that's not an answer to my

01:34:43 sorry that's not an answer to my question what was there to celebrate about a certificate that said nothing more

01:34:47 more than that this product is suitable for use in one particular tested configuration i just think it was it was great news it was

01:34:55 was you know as an organization you know it was

01:34:59 was any accreditation we get is is great news

01:35:02 news whether it's a bba certificate or uh accreditation on a flat roof you know it's great news for the uh for the business and great news for the people who are involved in running those

01:35:13 people who are involved in running those projects

01:35:16 projects what i'm going to suggest to you is that you knew at the time that that certificate was misleading and you celebrated it because it was an automatic ticket to put k-15 on tall buildings wasn't it i don't believe that was the case then

01:35:28 i don't believe that was the case then no it's right isn't it that queries about the compliance of k15 for use over 18 meters decreased significantly following following the issue of this

01:35:39 following following the issue of this labc type approval didn't they i don't know i have no recollection of that

01:35:46 that if we could go to an email chain

01:35:50 kin409135 this is a chain between you mr meredith and a number of others in august 2009 and i want to look at the second email in the chain dated the 28th of august

01:36:02 in the chain dated the 28th of august 2009

01:36:05 2009 10 29 from mr meredith to you

01:36:12 do you see it's sorry it's to richard bromwich

01:36:17 bromwich mark swift and then it's to the technical help desk do you see that there

01:36:21 there i do yeah would you have received that as part of that technical help desk email

01:36:25 email i can't recall whether i was on that circulation list and not so with it yeah i can't i can't recall

01:36:34 recall and then he says if we so he says i've give

01:36:38 give i give stephen a courtesy call apparently this is a very small area behind brass cladding so he's talking about k-15 being used at the top of a building

01:36:47 building and then seconds paragraph it's stuart taylor at wintec who is raising concerns and we know it as being pro-mineral wool and then apparently the lower areas of the job went to rock wool

01:36:59 the job went to rock wool and then it's he says this it may be a nice job to market as it's definitely over 18 meters and it's one of the bigger apartment blocks in the uk also beat them towers in manchester which is another high-rise job that went

01:37:10 which is another high-rise job that went to k-15 i think can we do some case did studies and then he says this i know these inquiries have died out since we obtained the labc approval however it would be good to get as much

01:37:21 however it would be good to get as much supporting evidence of successful jobs in the portfolio while we have the chance do you see that there i do yes

01:37:29 and does that help you remind yourself that

01:37:33 that queries had died out since the labc approval was obtained i've i've amounted less inquiries passed to him from the the

01:37:43 the front of house technical advisers yes and he would know wouldn't he uh he would know from from yeah yeah pre and post

01:37:52 and post the uh the approval yes if all the sophisticated users you are talking about had understood the labc certificate as system specific only why would such inquiries have died out

01:38:07 it may have been to do with that approvals or you know it's difficult to say but certainly by looking at that the labc document did reduce on the bba certificate

01:38:19 did reduce on the bba certificate potentially did reduce the number of inquiries

01:38:21 inquiries absolutely it did didn't it do you think they were all replicating or did you think at the time they were all replicating the exact configuration of the 2005 test

01:38:32 of the 2005 test to 8414 part one

01:38:39 i don't know no so again that illustrates how persuasive that labc certificate was in systems other than the one you tested doesn't it

01:38:50 doesn't it it does sure it had an effect on reducing the number of inquiries potentially yes

01:38:56 yes and that's why

01:39:00 your great news email is effectively celebrating the labc certificate isn't it well the great news email came out before obviously we did reduce the number of inquiries i

01:39:11 did reduce the number of inquiries i mean

01:39:12 mean yes but you knew it would reduce the number of inquiries didn't you i don't believe we knew it would because as a commercial organization we we encouraged architects and specifiers to call us

01:39:23 to call us so it wasn't something we we set out to do to reduce the number of inquiries

01:39:30 inquiries let's go to another email you wrote um kin 405382 11th of may 2009. this is an email with the heading

01:39:43 this is an email with the heading subject phenolic fire focus group and attached is the labc system approval certificate for kingspan cool fifth fifteen and you say this following the

01:39:55 fifteen and you say this following the success

01:39:55 success of receiving the attached labc accreditation that now satisfies the requirements for k-15 being installed above 18 meters we should cease any further fire tests for

01:40:07 cease any further fire tests for ventilated rain screens now pausing there that shows you absolutely new didn't you at the time that having got that certificate

01:40:18 that having got that certificate it was gonna satisfy the requirement for k-15 being installed above 18 meters without limitation that's correct isn't it

01:40:31 i think with regards to ceaseful the fire tests you know that was a uh collective decision i'm not asking you about that part yet

01:40:39 part yet right i'm asking you about the initial part where you say now satisfies the requirements for k-15 being installed above 18 meters why did you say that no i think we

01:40:50 why did you say that no i think we believed we believed it did at the time yes

01:40:53 yes yes because it was representing that k-15 was a material of limited combustibility which would mean that it could be used on all buildings over 18 meters without question would didn't it

01:41:06 question would didn't it potentially readers could have seen it that way yes

01:41:12 and then you go on um so you say we should cease any further fire test for ventilated rain screens at in excess of 15k per test both the sales and business development

01:41:23 both the sales and business development teams should be adept enough to use their toolkit to the full now what do you mean thereby use their toolkit to the full it was the marketing when we say toolkit

01:41:37 it was the marketing when we say toolkit it means that the marketing information they've got the bba certificate labc presentations

01:41:52 yes i'd suggest to you that what that means adept enough to use their toolkit to the full is the bba certificate and the labc certificate which when sent on jobs was an automatic

01:42:04 which when sent on jobs was an automatic passport to getting k-15 on tall buildings would you agree i don't believe it was an automatic passport because we you know after the bba we still get we still got queries and we still got queries after the labc

01:42:16 and we still got queries after the labc to some degree but i don't believe it was seen as a as a a passport for all application for all end-use applications for k-15 but if it was considered a material of

01:42:28 but if it was considered a material of limiting but a bit custom combustibility that's what it would mean under a proved document b wouldn't it that

01:42:35 that if it's limited combustibility you can use it on any building above 18 meters if it was read that way yes

01:42:45 but you're saying you weren't sure it was going to be read that way are you as i said earlier that time you know what for us it was always a assist it was a system aspect

01:42:56 assist it was a system aspect but i can see now why people would have read it that way

01:43:00 you go on the pressure is on other component suppliers of this method of construction to obtain similar statements or prove their non-combustible statements do you see that there i do yes what did you mean by that

01:43:13 you mean by that it was in relation to you know if we undertake further tests obviously circa 15 000 pounds at the time it was expensive

01:43:20 expensive and we wanted other component suppliers to to

01:43:23 to to approach us or we'd be parted to them through

01:43:27 through through either the range screen works group

01:43:30 group um to be involved in the tests whether it was

01:43:34 it was um steel frame systems fire barriers or manufacturers of range screen cladding panels

01:43:45 of range screen cladding panels this was a get out of jail card wasn't it you'd been coming under some pressure prior to this certificate to justify the use of k-15 on particularly on steel frame buildings

01:43:57 particularly on steel frame buildings and then this falls into your lap and it buys time doesn't it during which k-15 can carry on being put on high-rise buildings that's the reality isn't it um

01:44:08 that's the reality isn't it um the two certificates certainly helped but the reality wasn't because we were still undertaking i think even we're still undertaking fire tests in relation to k-15

01:44:21 fire tests in relation to k-15 from the processing department so the tests were continuing it wasn't we completely stopped tests were continuing

01:44:30 what i have to say mr heath i found that a little difficult to understand if you read the first sentence of this email as a whole

01:44:40 a whole it looks as though what you're saying is now we've got accreditation that satisfies the requirements for using k15 above 18 meters we should stop doing any

01:44:51 above 18 meters we should stop doing any more fire testing in other words we've done all we need to do is that the right thing i think it's that's correct i think in relation to large scale tests we were stopping testing until we had

01:45:04 we were stopping testing until we had other parties who would undertake the test with us from a technical process side of things there were still small scale tests being undertaken lab tests

01:45:16 being undertaken lab tests uh i believe um we mentioned it before the uh calorimeter tests and things yes just small scale tests whether it be in our laboratory or at

01:45:28 our laboratory or at x over or bre or whatever so there was small-scale tests still being undertaken sorry but you were saying to your team stop any further large-scale fire tests

01:45:40 any further large-scale fire tests weren't you i was yes even though you didn't have a test which showed

01:45:45 showed that k15 as part of a tested system could pass bs 8414 part two did you that's correct yeah

01:46:01 can we go to paragraph 3.26 of your witness statement on page 16.

01:46:13 witness statement on page 16. you say this in october 2008 we received the bba certificate for k-15 and in may 9 we received a system approval certificate from the labc approving the use of k-15 in non-combustible systems

01:46:25 non-combustible systems in my view these documents which evidenced third-party consideration of k-15 suitability for use over 18 meters and confirmation as to its suitability for use in non-combustible systems in

01:46:36 for use in non-combustible systems in this application were sufficient to support kingspan's promotion of the product for use in non-combustible systems over 18 meters my opinion was therefore at this stage that further testing and development of

01:46:48 that further testing and development of k-15

01:46:49 k-15 was unnecessary and that if cladding manufacturers or other component suppliers wish to specify k-15 in systems not covered by the o5 test they could do their own system testing to demonstrate suitability

01:47:01 to demonstrate suitability do you see that there yes i do so you're confirming there it was your decision your instruction to stop testing to 8414 wasn't it there was a collective agreement to uh

01:47:13 there was a collective agreement to uh to cease those large scale tests yes

01:47:17 it wasn't a decision i made almost by myself

01:47:20 myself you that last part that i read there where you say if cladding manufacturers or other component suppliers wish to specify k-15 in systems not covered by the 2005 test

01:47:31 in systems not covered by the 2005 test they could do their own system testing to demonstrate suitability that's not what you said in the email we just looked at was it there you say the certificate satisfies

01:47:42 there you say the certificate satisfies the requirement for k-15 being installed above above 18 meters would you agree

01:47:58 sorry i've i'm not seeing the the conflict at the minute sorry you're saying there that if individuals wish to use

01:48:10 k15 in systems so if you look one two three four lines up from the bottom you say if cladding manufacturers or other component suppliers wish to specify k-15 in systems which were not covered by the

01:48:21 in systems which were not covered by the 2005 test they could do their own system testing

01:48:25 testing to demonstrate suitability do you see that there i do yes but that's absolutely not what you're saying in that email of the 11th of may 2009 is it that you just discussed with the chairman

01:48:36 just discussed with the chairman where you say the certificate satisfies their requirements for k-15 being installed above 18 meters do you see

01:48:44 see i do yes yeah i do see that conflict now yes

01:48:47 yes but the two positions can't be right can they no

01:48:50 they no no no it's right isn't it there was no instruction to colleagues that customers were to be told to do their own testing if they wish to specify

01:49:01 if they wish to specify a different system was there um i believe it was it was recognized within the team that you know if somebody approached us who wanted to undertake a test with one of

01:49:12 wanted to undertake a test with one of their components we'd be willing to do so so you know i think it was common knowledge in in the business that you know it was we were undertaking these tests as our own expense

01:49:23 own expense to the benefit of other associated product manufacturers so i think it was a decision made that and it was well known within the organization that would be we wouldn't turn down any offers to

01:49:35 we wouldn't turn down any offers to undertake a system test with other component suppliers who wish to come to the table i see mr meredith had sent an invite out on the 30th of april 2009

01:49:47 an invite out on the 30th of april 2009 to the first meeting of the phenolic fire focus group um he sends that email that email invite to you

01:49:53 to you to you malcolm rochford vincent koppel gwen davis and justin davis and then the meeting

01:49:59 meeting is scheduled for the 18th of may 2009 and i want to go to the minutes of that meeting that's kin30s 20737

01:50:14 so this is from what we can see the first meeting of this phenolic fire focus group we can see who's present and then you've sent your apologies do you see that there

01:50:26 yes i do are you likely to have reviewed the minutes of this meeting at some point during your time as technical manager

01:50:36 uh i would have done yes i was splitting my time a little bit in in other markets at that time but yes i would have read that so if we look under background on that

01:50:47 so if we look under background on that very first page

01:50:51 we can see it says the meeting was called to organize agree and understand the current fire testing requirements and mandatory product development of our new technology cool firm

01:51:00 firm there are several fire performance requirements that are crucial for sales of phenolic however in some areas on development phenolic products we are failing just short of the mark

01:51:11 we are failing just short of the mark this group was originally pulled together as we believed we must have the bs eight four one four

01:51:16 one four one and two the facade test for masonry and steel frame fire propagation test on cool them k15 following the recent release of the k-15 bba and the labc

01:51:28 bba and the labc lantac approval this urgent requirement has been relaxed as the documents are working

01:51:34 working to cover the regulatory desires for specific system approval and then it says other areas of concern relate to the surface spread fire performance of the product

01:51:45 spread fire performance of the product that we are concerned may have reduced this can be seen in recent bs 476 part 7 tests

01:51:51 tests do you see that there yes i do [Applause] so it's clearly being stated there isn't it that the urgent requirement for 8414 testing including for steel frames

01:52:03 including for steel frames has now been relaxed because those two documents the bba and labc certificates are working to cover the regulatory desires do you see that there i do yes

01:52:14 i do yes and was that your understanding at the time that that's what was happening

01:52:23 i did believe it as you said the labc and the bba approval had had provided us with uh with reduced inquiries so yes that that narrative i'd say is

01:52:36 yes that that narrative i'd say is correct yeah yeah if we can go down and look at item two of these meeting minutes still on page one

01:52:44 one we can see there under cool therm k-15 facade test it says this following discussions it was agreed that we still need to look at developing a product that will be able to pass a bs 8414 part

01:52:56 that will be able to pass a bs 8414 part 2 test

01:52:57 2 test as a backup to the labc documentation do you see that there yes i do and then it says current fire propagation levels with ath

01:53:06 with ath filled and op920 development products are not adequate for this test thus currently

01:53:13 currently we are not in a situation to test due to the prolonged levels of afterburn which are experienced do you see that there yes so would you agree that this sentence

01:53:24 sentence clearly shows that kingspan knew at this time

01:53:27 time that k-15 could not pass a large-scale fire test as part of a system tested to 841 file part two within the systems we'd tested up to now

01:53:39 within the systems we'd tested up to now at that time yes i mean his comments there can only be related to the the systems that we've failed yes and do you agree that the minutes also make clear that the improved

01:53:51 make clear that the improved trial products being developed were also thought unlikely to be able to pass as part of a successful system test from his comments yes yes

01:54:09 from his comments yes yes [Applause] and is that why you then specifically and deliberately decided to stop testing and wait until kingspan

01:54:20 testing and wait until kingspan were challenged i don't believe so now

01:54:30 [Applause]

01:54:34 if we go back to the email at kin405382

01:54:44 if we look at the final page page six of this chain

01:54:56 if we pick it up where the email starts on the page before on the 30th of april 2009

01:55:06 2009 you're right uh iva's writing to a number of viewing and you're copied in

01:55:13 in and he says the purpose of this technical group is to concentrate on understanding and develop developing the far performance of our phenolic insulation

01:55:23 do you see that there yes

01:55:31 and then just going on with that email primary targets of this group are as follows

01:55:37 follows and then he's got understand why alternative phenolic formulations may have yielded better fire test results new technology versus old do you see that there

01:55:48 yes i do yeah

01:55:54 and

01:55:56 [Applause] the tool kit that was being used at the time

01:56:01 time where we thought reference to that in the email is it right that that toolkit would have involved the labc certificate the bba certificate and the 18414 test from 2005.

01:56:12 18414 test from 2005. is that right

01:56:16 that's correct as well as other marketing material yes

01:56:26 if we go then back to your email of the 11th of may 2009 kin 405382

01:56:41 after you've said that the pressure is on other component suppliers you say this you say this saving will allow other applications and the call firm brand to achieve a similar

01:56:52 call firm brand to achieve a similar focus to that given to k-15 over recent years and look at how the sales in this have grown therefore the focus on this group should be other cool firm applications where we do not have the completed sales toolkit

01:57:04 do not have the completed sales toolkit we should also be considering fire tests smoke tests etc that may not be relevant for either construction or the end use application provided it has a good marketing story

01:57:15 has a good marketing story these should be tabled do you see that there yes i do is that an instruction from you to fill marketing material with test results that are essentially irrelevant

01:57:26 that are essentially irrelevant no this was a a recommendation that came from my director as to what are the fire tests we could use to to market to show you know low smoke

01:57:38 to market to show you know low smoke emissions etc from phenolic that was a line i put into that email that was given to me by uh another person in the organisation and who was that that would have been the managing

01:57:49 that would have been the managing director at the time who was that uh peter wilson so you saying that he wanted you to add into this email we should also be considering fire test smoke tests etc that may not be relevant

01:58:01 smoke tests etc that may not be relevant for either construction or the end-use application provided it has a good marketing story these should be tabled

01:58:08 be tabled are you saying he asked you to add that in

01:58:12 in that's correct yes and on what basis were you content to put that in did you think that that was an appropriate marketing strategy and it was really too from from a

01:58:23 and it was really too from from a coolthorn point of view a lot of people weren't aware of some of the benefits of phenolic the smoke emission tests and things like that so it was

01:58:32 it was you know there are other tests in the in the industry where it may have been relevant to test them say for

01:58:39 say for uh food processing areas coal stores and and things like that so but mr heath you're you're specifically talking there about tests that may not

01:58:50 talking there about tests that may not be relevant for either construction or the end use application provided it has a good marketing story these should be tabled can you explain why you thought that comment was

01:59:01 why you thought that comment was it was basically to see if we could have a

01:59:04 a test to determine whether there was a marketing story in it to confirm the the benefits of phenolic did you consider this to be responsible behavior at the time

01:59:15 behavior at the time on the part of kingspan um at the time it's probably you know looking at

01:59:25 over 10 years ago or so you know it was it was important at the time to to have good

01:59:33 good stories inverted comments for the marketing department to uh to draft yeah stories which weren't always true were they or case studies even i don't know if

01:59:44 or case studies even i don't know if they weren't true but it's you know to pass the test whether it's relevant to construction or not provided you test it it was it was seen as a an opportunity to market phenolic to

01:59:55 to market phenolic to to explain the benefits of it if we look if we carry on within this email you you say after that that first few paragraphs with regards call firm applications that require

02:00:06 call firm applications that require specific attention my recommendation would be to concentrate on the following and then you say this closure on the class naught project if it hasn't been already

02:00:15 already do you see that there

02:00:19 yes what does that mean closure on the class naught project if it hasn't been already

02:00:28 basically to ensure we had the the classo accreditation boxed off yes because you knew didn't you that you were struggling to get class naught on the basis of the new

02:00:39 get class naught on the basis of the new technology that's right isn't it i knew we were struggling with it previously i don't know if

02:00:47 know if at that time we'd we'd achieve class 0 and i knew years leading up to that we'd use the results out of kestrel did you know that that claim has national class naught continued to be

02:00:59 national class naught continued to be repeated

02:01:00 repeated in all of kingspan's marketing literature nonetheless throughout this whole period uh i did yes

02:01:07 yes yes yes and yet you knew that it was struggling to get class naught on the new technology yes i did but obviously you know we submitted i presume we submitted that as

02:01:18 submitted i presume we submitted that as part of the bba approval as well and with the bba undertaking regular audits who knew we'd changed over the technology assume with the bba accepted it then

02:01:29 assume with the bba accepted it then it was acceptable was class naught testing stopped here at this stage on your instruction um i doubt whether it would have been no you doubt it but is that what you

02:01:41 you doubt it but is that what you intended by this email you said my recommendation would be to concentrate on the following closure on the class naught project closure on the classo if we'd had

02:01:52 closure on the classo if we'd had achieved classo like say that was a project being run by the uh

02:01:57 the uh technical process team so it was only closure on it if they'd achieved classo but if they hadn't achieved it would you have expected them to have taken that claim

02:02:05 claim out of the marketing literature

02:02:10 well they were still relying on the um the kestrel test yes oh yes old testament

02:02:16 testament old testament yeah mr meredith writes to you

02:02:20 you about your decision to stop testing let's go to that it's at kin405387 i want to look at the bottom email in the chain on page two this is on the

02:02:32 the chain on page two this is on the 17th of june 2000 and

02:02:37 9.

02:02:41 he says please provide comment on the k-15 minute agreed at the meeting i would like to make sure you're happy with this as we didn't get your input into this issue

02:02:52 into this issue do you see that there and he says thanks oh sorry and then if you go to the next email up

02:02:59 email up so this is a little bit confusing how it came out in the emails the next email up he then cuts and pastes the section of the meeting minutes he says phil

02:03:08 says phil this is what we called about yesterday morning

02:03:12 morning i've dropped it into the body text just in case you're working off your ipad as it conflicts with your prior stance i wanted to get your opinion before it's minuted

02:03:21 minuted malcolm wants to make the product now to reduce trial costs however we're not in a position to test until are confident that it's better than the norm do you see that there i do yes and he's

02:03:32 do you see that there i do yes and he's set out

02:03:33 set out the the minute that we looked at previously

02:03:38 where if we go down the next page to see the rest of that minute

02:03:46 where it's recorded

02:03:50 thus currently we're not in a situation to test due to the prolonged levels of afterburn

02:03:56 afterburn do you see that there i am presented the findings of the recent single burning items some ad hoc tests

02:04:05 and then in annex a some pictures have been added to illustrate the visible properties it was agreed to make enough k-15 for a full-scale test and some small-scale indicators with the r336 and resin mod and rn

02:04:17 with the r336 and resin mod and rn modified resins so it would appear that what iva is asking you for is your input on whether they can [Music]

02:04:27 [Music] carry on making some k15 for a full scale test do you see that there i do yes yeah

02:04:34 and then if you get if you move up the chain

02:04:42 he's saying this conflicts with your prior stance you want he wants to get your opinion before it's minuted and then we see your response above at 10 29

02:04:56 response above at 10 29 the same day and you say this as i previously stated the labc doc ticks the boxes at the moment and until we are challenged we should cease all k-15 facade tests

02:05:09 should cease all k-15 facade tests and focus our effort elsewhere regards phil do you see that there i do yes what boxes did the labc document tick other than the one system covered by the eight four one four part one test in may

02:05:21 eight four one four part one test in may 2005

02:05:29 the only other boxes it would tick would be the uh

02:05:32 be the uh to simplify it through the the building control and to to here to facilitate it through building control yes by by showing that it was a material of limited combustibility as per the

02:05:44 of limited combustibility as per the labc certificate yes uh with hindsight yes not just with hindsight mr heath that's your thinking at the time isn't it as we can obviously see from this email the labc

02:05:56 obviously see from this email the labc is a it's

02:05:58 is a it's an important document whichever product it is but

02:06:01 it is but i can i can see why people would think that yes

02:06:05 that yes what did you mean by until we are challenged

02:06:14 i'm not sure if you believe this course of action to be holy legitimate on what basis

02:06:19 basis do you appear to be anticipating challenge in this email

02:06:31 challenge in this email i'm not sure what i'm relating to there with it's the yeah i'm not sure why i put challenged within that would you agree that you were well aware that the certificate was fundamentally

02:06:42 that the certificate was fundamentally misleading on this key aspect of suitability for use over 18 meters and that kings fan would

02:06:48 would almost certainly be challenged on it reading that i would i would say yes in deciding on this course of action to stop

02:06:59 stop all k-15 facade tests and let that labc document tick the boxes

02:07:06 boxes what consideration was given to the life safety risks posed by k-15 now we were obviously concerned about the life safety risks of

02:07:17 the life safety risks of of what the business said was unfortunately at that time you know it was obviously we we misinterpreted what the labc

02:07:29 we we misinterpreted what the labc regarded cool them as when you say we were obviously concerned about the life safety risks would you agree in all the emails i've shown you that we've been through today

02:07:40 been through today that not once do you see you saying we need to be really careful here because there are life safety consequences if we recommend our product for use

02:07:50 for use above 18 meters would you agree that uh on reflection i can see that yes yes it's it's there in black and white isn't it we see a complete absence of any consideration of life safety

02:08:02 any consideration of life safety that's right isn't it i don't believe that was the the mindset of king spent at that time but i got on reflection i can see why why we think that yes

02:08:14 why do you not believe it was the mindset of kingspan at that time it wasn't i mean life safety is is fundamental

02:08:28 do you accept that there existed no valid test evidence throughout the entire period 2006 2010 while you were technical manager

02:08:38 manager based on which the k-15 which was actually being sold could comply with the building regulations for use over 18 meters do you accept that i think we put too much reliance on that

02:08:50 i think we put too much reliance on that test and

02:08:50 test and and the the bba and the labc interpretation i believe we put

02:08:58 put potentially too much reliance on that i'm going to ask the question again do you accept that there existed no valid test evidence throughout the entire period 2006 to 2010

02:09:09 period 2006 to 2010 while you were technical manager based on which k-15 which was actually being sold

02:09:14 sold could comply with the building regulations for use over 18 meters i can see why that's suggested yes i can understand that you know we you use the classo surface

02:09:26 you know we you use the classo surface spreader flame from from kestrel rightly or wrongly and that was

02:09:31 was approved by the bba as well so yeah with with hindsight i can see why that uh why you made that comment yes what i'd suggest to you is that you directed that

02:09:43 directed that as a position that kingspan were taking and you endorsed it at the time uh i believe there was a collective within the overall

02:09:54 within the overall technical department to and a belief in that respect it wasn't just a single person but are you prepared to take some responsibility for the role you played as technical manager

02:10:05 manager in that position between 2006 and 2010 uh yes

02:10:11 now you've confirmed at the outset of your evidence that you still work at kingspan

02:10:17 kingspan have you ever been investigated or disciplined by kingspan for any actions you took

02:10:21 you took in relation to the k-15 product i haven't no has anyone ever spoken to you about what occurred with k15 and whether the

02:10:32 occurred with k15 and whether the testing and marketing of that product was appropriate during the time you were responsible for that leave aside any conversations you might have had in the context of this inquiry has anyone within kingspan spoken to you

02:10:44 has anyone within kingspan spoken to you about

02:10:45 about whether the marketing at that time and your actions were appropriate during the time you were technical manager no they haven't

02:10:55 just finally the handover process um you hand it over to mr millitap is that right uh that's correct the end of 2009 yeah certainly in the last yeah the last

02:11:07 yeah certainly in the last yeah the last quarter because yesterday and did you have a period of overlapping with him so that you could bring him up to speed with k15 for example um i think at the time tony was in an office

02:11:19 was in an office next to me so there was continued discussion um as to as to the projects that were involved

02:11:29 involved and meetings between myself and tony and andrew park individually and i think tony and

02:11:36 tony and and iva as well did you bring him up to speed

02:11:39 speed with the history of the testing of k15 and what you had discovered about its fire performance i think we brought him up to speed with regards to what tests we undertook

02:11:51 regards to what tests we undertook um he'd have been um made aware of the tests that were required

02:11:59 and and i'm not sure if he's copied on the technical lamination minutes as well so he could see all the projects that were going on at the time sorry no as i say he may have been copied with

02:12:11 no as i say he may have been copied with the

02:12:12 the technical lamination meeting minutes at the time as well i'm not sure did you tell him about the change in fire performance that you had noticed or that mr meredith had noticed

02:12:24 noticed or that mr meredith had noticed the bre had noticed kingspan off-site had noticed when the k-15 was tested in 2007 and 2008.

02:12:31 2008. i can't recall whether whether i did or not during the handover did you tell him that the test you'd done in 2005 to 8414 part 1 was with a different k-15 product the old technology product

02:12:44 old technology product i can't recall but i doubt whether i would have mentioned the difference between old and new technology because we're well into the new technology then mr chairman i've come to the end of my questions

02:12:55 questions right if we could have the customary break to see if there are any further questions yes thank you very much well ms granger said she's got to the end of her questions but at this stage we have a short break both to enable council to

02:13:07 short break both to enable council to check they haven't overlooked anything and also to give an opportunity for those who aren't present to suggest other questions that might be put to you right so we're going to break now we'll come back at half past

02:13:18 now we'll come back at half past four um and see whether there are further questions that we okay like you to deal with so would you like to go with the usher and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence okay thank you very much thank you very much

02:13:40 i think ten minutes ought to be enough yes i i have something

02:25:13 yes would you ask mr heath to come back in please

02:25:31 all right mr teeth well we'll see if there are any more questions for you okay

02:25:34 okay yes it's great any questions yes just a few um if we could go to um another email string please kin405274

02:25:52 um another email string please kin405274 and what i want to do is look at the email

02:25:55 email two down sorry three down on that page from you to mr meredith 26th of march at 10

02:26:04 50. do you see that there 26th of march 2007 10.50 to either you say either we're coming under pressure from both metalcon and jean is metalcon kingspan offsite

02:26:19 and jean is metalcon kingspan offsite is that another phrase for them he yeah it could well be yeah and gene would that be gene merta the ceo of kingsburn uh i would

02:26:31 merta the ceo of kingsburn uh i would presume so yes yeah to undertake bs8414 test with a raft of alternative rain screen

02:26:37 screen solutions basically going 50 50 on cost of 230k with them both mine and peter's argument

02:26:45 argument is that we have basically got it boxed off from the king's band standpoint and have hence drafted the following please check and comment as you feel fit do you see that there yes

02:26:57 fit do you see that there yes and then you say um to in your draft to gene murder good morning gene may i refer to your meeting last friday with peter and malcolm

02:27:06 malcolm is that with peter wilson and malcolm rochford i cannot excuse me i can only assume so yeah yeah during which the issue of fire testing ventilated rain screens insulated with cool

02:27:17 cool kautham k15 was discussed we have already undertaken a number of facade tests to the large-scale bs-8414 these included testing the facade with and without ventilated rain screen to determine if we could achieve

02:27:28 to determine if we could achieve correlation between facade without rain screen cladding and one with now pausing there are those the the tests from 2004 and 2005 the naked test and then the

02:27:39 and then the the 2005 841 i would assume so yeah yeah and then you say we attempted to keep the actual rain screen generic by using cement particle board fixed to the steel frame

02:27:49 frame with the appropriate gaps between the sheets to simulate a trespa type solution

02:27:53 solution the end result was we achieved correlation in that flame spread across the k-15 was similar with with and without the effect of the cladding material and then you say these two tests have allowed kingspan to market the system

02:28:05 allowed kingspan to market the system against 8414 and to date we've not been requested to undertake the test bespoke to a particular rain screen solution do you see that there i do yes so what we see in in

02:28:16 i do yes so what we see in in in this email exchange in 2007 is assuming you sent that email do you remember whether you sent it i don't recall whether whether i sent that draft that was prepared now

02:28:27 that draft that was prepared now but you appear to be giving advice to the likes of gene merta and others about whether or not further testing should be carried out do you see that

02:28:39 should be carried out do you see that there and and what you've got from the testing so far so what i want to put to you that far from you being told by seniors what to do about the

02:28:50 told by seniors what to do about the kings band k15 testing you were integral to the advice that was being given at different stages about whether to keep testing or not do you see that

02:29:01 testing or not do you see that that's i do see that yes and would you agree

02:29:04 agree that that's correct you were integral to the decision making there was a collective i didn't work alone in making those decisions if you see the email above you know

02:29:16 if you see the email above you know we've

02:29:16 we've we drafted a letter together so i was i was part of a collective that made those decisions do you mean with mr meredith

02:29:26 meredith i know with with the other directors of the business i see but you accept that you gave advice to those

02:29:33 those higher up about whether or not you should

02:29:36 should test k15 at different stages you would accept that yes i was in that narrative i was certainly briefing them as to where we were and where we got to and how we were using those tests yes thank you and then just a final

02:29:49 yes thank you and then just a final question we've been through uh an awful lot of material both on thursday afternoon and during the course of today what would you have done differently if you had the chance to do it again

02:30:02 um i think as a as a manager um i would have um highlighted my concerns more to uh to

02:30:15 my concerns more to uh to the collective team and not accepted the recommendations and advice from the bba

02:30:26 recommendations and advice from the bba and the labc who and the bre who were seen as the experts or the deans at the time in in the industry so

02:30:39 i see mr chairman thank you those are all the questions good well mr heath and just reminds me for me to thank you on behalf of the panel

02:30:49 panel for coming to give your evidence uh it's been very useful to hear from you and we're very grateful to you for coming along to tell us what you know no thank you thank you very much indeed very important now you're free to go

02:31:00 very important now you're free to go thank you thank you

02:31:14 thank you thank you good thank you well that's it for the day it is tomorrow we have um hopefully mr rochford for kingspan right thank you very much well we'll sit again then tomorrow at 10 o'clock

02:31:23 o'clock thank you very much

02:32:29 you