Kingspan Evidence - Tuesday 1st December 2020 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:08 would you ask dr rocha to come back in please okay

00:00:19 last name

00:00:26 all right dr rochas yes yes carry on yes thank you yes yes thank you yes we were in an email chain relating to the concerns that have been raised by kingspan offside if we

00:00:37 been raised by kingspan offside if we can go back to that

00:00:42 kin403714

00:00:48 and if we can look closely at that email you send at the top of that page there now i'd ask you about that first paragraph but i now want to just look at the second paragraph you say if

00:01:01 look at the second paragraph you say if necessary i suppose we could send old formulation material for the testing if you think this has a better chance and they are pressing but this is undesirable for several reasons

00:01:12 undesirable for several reasons and i'd rather delay and get the new fr product made as soon as hexian can supply material which we are waiting on do you see that there yes i do what were the reasons which would make it

00:01:23 the reasons which would make it undesirable to send old formulation foam to kingspan offsite for their testing

00:01:30 testing i think i covered them earlier it's several reasons i mean originally

00:01:38 um gwyn davis had queried i think the um the performance of the old old material so what it wasn't certain it would it would

00:01:48 would uh work in the in this system uh changing over to uh the old material would mean the whole production line would have to well the whole production line for k-15 at least

00:02:00 whole production line for k-15 at least would have to change over um and therefore if unless uh either was saying that that was definitely the route to go uh i'd i would rather delay for this

00:02:12 uh i'd i would rather delay for this particular fire test sequence get the the new fr product

00:02:18 product yes and was one of those reasons also that it was not the product kingspan were in fact manufacturing and selling at the time i think that follows from what you've just said about you'd have to transfer over the whole at least the

00:02:29 to transfer over the whole at least the whole k15

00:02:32 whole k15 process to the old tech that would that would be extremely burdensome wouldn't it and costly it would be it would be logistically uh just

00:02:42 just quite difficult to do but it would be possible i mean if either was saying uh yes that's the way then then we could have done it can we agree that you're not in this

00:02:53 can we agree that you're not in this email saying to your colleagues i'm really concerned that we're selling something

00:02:59 something that hasn't passed these tests i'm not saying that but again it's it's a system being tested so i i still don't know if it's the system

00:03:10 system that's giving the problem or the product so far as you are aware after this did anyone ever tell kingspan off-site

00:03:18 off-site anything about the fact that the k-15 they had been testing was a different k-15 from the one which with which kingspan had had some success i don't know that i know there were

00:03:29 i don't know that i know there were meetings with off-site i think with aidan wilkinson after this but um i don't think i was involved in them no

00:03:40 you said in your witness statement and we looked at it earlier uh this morning that in your experience kingspan always gave straight and clear advice from which you consider kingspan was respected within the industry

00:03:53 respected within the industry did you think it was giving straight and clear advice to recommend that you said that it was a potentially the problems were in the same batch and might suffer from a similar problem

00:04:04 similar problem back to kingspan offside i think this was

00:04:07 was this was in terms of um

00:04:12 internally uh coming up with a uh a reason to to pause and and say well what's what's up with the with the fire test with this

00:04:23 the with the fire test with this particular uh fire test um and um that that was probably the best way to do it at that time but as i say there were separate discussions with off-site so i

00:04:35 separate discussions with off-site so i don't know what was discussed

00:04:39 can we agree that the only tests that you could rely on at this stage even remotely to support kingspan being used over 18 meters was the 2005

00:04:50 used over 18 meters was the 2005 test that had been done on old technology it was the 2005 test that we were relying on yes i just want to put at this stage i just

00:05:01 i just want to put at this stage i just want to put some passages to you from mr meredith's oral evidence that he gave to this inquiry and to get your response to those if we can go first to day 75

00:05:12 those if we can go first to day 75 page 179

00:05:22 and if we can pick it up at line um 14 [Music]

00:05:27 [Music] and and this is where we've been discussing um the kingspan off-site emails so i say at 14 just putting this email to one side for the moment and just thinking

00:05:38 side for the moment and just thinking generally did mr rochford ever raise any concerns with you about supplying customers with new technology k15 given the fire risk it posed and then he says this i don't think as

00:05:50 and then he says this i don't think as far as i

00:05:51 far as i recollect malcolm didn't raise issues with me

00:05:54 with me it would be me raising issues with him i would always go to him with my problems not vice versa so i can't recollect unfortunately do you see that there i see his response yes and and do you

00:06:07 i see his response yes and and do you agree with that that it was it was him raising issues with you and problems

00:06:12 problems about k-15 with you rather than you ever going to him and saying if we've got problems with k-15 what should we do about it do you agree no i don't agree i think clearly you can

00:06:24 no i don't agree i think clearly you can see that i'm saying that look um to either if you if the old process is the product you think we need to supply for this then then let's do it well we we've talked about that email

00:06:36 well we we've talked about that email and um but that is that is talking to either i

00:06:39 either i and i would have said the same in person as well

00:06:43 as well so yes and we've discussed whether or not that email might actually be read as you providing old process k-15 for the testing

00:06:50 testing took king's van off-site yes no we wouldn't have done that it would have been

00:06:54 been right can we look at day 75 page 1 5 7 now pick it up at line eight

00:07:07 so this was earlier in his questioning when we've been discussing his report about how the phenolic burned if you pick it up at line eight i say

00:07:18 if you pick it up at line eight i say did philip heath and malcolm rochefort share your concern about the fire performance of the new technology k15 at this time

00:07:25 this time and he says like i say i think this might have been the time that i was criticized for not being very positive about

00:07:30 about our products or sorry the kingspan products

00:07:34 products do you see that there yes were you ever made aware that um mr meredith was criticized for not being positive enough about kingsband products

00:07:43 products no i wasn't aware of that and that didn't come ever from you as technical director no i wouldn't i appreciated the openness of either i mean he wasn't uh

00:07:54 either i mean he wasn't uh he wasn't most stable of characters but he was he was he was very dedicated he did an excellent job on the whole and uh

00:08:02 uh i'd much appreciated it and then it carries on so i'll put the question at 14. so does it follow that you didn't think your managers were concerned or concerned in the same way as you and then he says i don't think they were

00:08:14 and then he says i don't think they were concerned in the same way as me no and then i say yes and then he said i felt a tremendous responsibility for this because the buck stopped with the technical department to make sure that it was suitable for

00:08:25 to make sure that it was suitable for the marketplace and we had to do the testing

00:08:28 testing do you see that there yes would you agree that you weren't concerned in the same way that he was about the fire performance of k-15 i think we were concerned about the results from the from the fire test from the system tests

00:08:41 from the fire test from the system tests um

00:08:42 um and i think we were looking at k15 as one of the possible causes of that problem right so i think we have to look at it in an objective way and if we

00:08:54 at it in an objective way and if we carry on

00:08:54 carry on at 24 line 24 i ask after you wrote this and obviously this report was delivered to the technical team did you feel at the

00:09:02 the time that your concerns about the fire performance of new technology k-15 were being taken seriously by philip heath and malcolm rochford and he says this answer i felt like i wasn't ever heard

00:09:13 wasn't ever heard actually when it came to issues like this

00:09:16 this and then at line six did you actually have conversations with them as well as writing this in which he said i'm really concerned about how k15 performs given the testing we've just done how it performs in fire

00:09:27 done how it performs in fire did you have those conversations with them we were always there was always a new solution on the horizon we could try this or we could do this so i was constantly being you know there was something round the corner that

00:09:39 was something round the corner that could help us move forward so i guess i was always hoping that that would be the end of it really do you see that there i see that yeah now just going back to that earlier part at line

00:09:49 at line four he says he felt he wasn't ever heard

00:09:52 heard when it came to issues like this are you prepared to accept looking at it now that you

00:09:58 that you didn't hear him properly about the concerns he was expressing no i i think we did hear i think it was it was one of the factors we had to take into account

00:10:10 into account and is it right that in reality everyone was always just looking to the new solution on the horizon the next possible test that might validate the use of k-15 on tall

00:10:21 validate the use of k-15 on tall buildings is that the reality of how it was at the time i don't know if it was a general if that was a general

00:10:28 general issue i think my propensity uh because of my job was as a chemist was was to look for possible chemical solutions that would be

00:10:39 solutions that would be the sort of thing i would do so that that would be the way my mind would work technical director was it not part of your responsibility

00:10:50 your responsibility to make sure that you weren't selling something which was being misdescribed from a technical point of view was that not part of your responsibility not just to look for the next solution

00:11:01 next solution but to check that what you were selling was safe

00:11:04 was safe i think i think we we had in general in terms of

00:11:07 terms of the fire testing etc carried out tests i think this um particular system test was raising concerns and we were looking at it and saying well how

00:11:19 were looking at it and saying well how how can we um how can we solve this issue

00:11:26 and then if we carry on um it's line 17 but do you actually have a specific recollection of raising concerns with them he says answer i raised concerns on numerous occasions when it came to new technology

00:11:38 when it came to new technology and then about its fire performance yeah you didn't think you would listen to is that what you're saying i might have been listened to but they certainly didn't

00:11:47 didn't respond to it do you see that there and then i go on you said earlier that you thought it was around this time that you were being criticized for being too negative who was it who criticized you for being too

00:11:59 was it who criticized you for being too negative

00:12:00 negative it would have been the managing director so who was that malcolm and he says peter wilson okay now were you ever made aware that peter wilson was criticizing iva meredith for being too negative

00:12:13 iva meredith for being too negative about k-15's fire performance no it wasn't

00:12:19 mr heath also said in his evidence yesterday that mr meredith's concerns were conveyed to you we can see that in writing yes but i asked him that and he confirmed that

00:12:30 asked him that and he confirmed that they were conveyed to you and can you explain why you didn't take those concerns seriously at the time sorry i think i think we did take them seriously i think we were looking we're doing a lot of work to see if we

00:12:42 we're doing a lot of work to see if we could um

00:12:43 could um solve those those problems did you ever take steps to check that in fact you were only ever selling k-15 on high-rise buildings for those with

00:12:55 on high-rise buildings for those with masonry substrates did you ever check that for yourself i don't think i did i would have relied on the on the sales and ts to make sure that happen

00:13:06 and ts to make sure that happen why not once you realize that k-15s performed so badly in steel frame systems that's your evidence that it was the system that was so concerning

00:13:17 concerning why not check that what you're selling is only ever for masonry substrates i would have trusted the system and and

00:13:28 i would have trusted the system and and the and the people involved in it

00:13:36 i want to go on now to ask you about the labc

00:13:40 labc system approval certificate that was issued in 2009 and you make clear just for the transcript it's paragraph 8.4 of your

00:13:51 transcript it's paragraph 8.4 of your statement page 36 that you had no direct involvement in any interaction with the labc

00:13:56 labc in 2009 in relation to that certificate that's right isn't it that's correct yes and who was responsible so far as you were aware for obtaining that document that labc

00:14:08 obtaining that document that labc system certification as far as i know it was philip heath [Music]

00:14:13 [Music] when did you first see the final issued document

00:14:18 it was issued in may 2009 did you see it straight away do you remember i don't know that i actually saw the document um i mean presumably at some stage i would have

00:14:29 presumably at some stage i would have looked at it but i don't recall looking through the document what did you understand to be the purpose of kingspan obtaining this labc certificate um i understood the purpose was uh

00:14:44 um i understood the purpose was uh as a way of ensuring that uh k15 could be used on facades above 18 meters yes and generally on facades over 18 meters that's right isn't it not just on masonry systems

00:14:56 isn't it not just on masonry systems i don't think i don't think it says that i mean i've looked at it subsequently i don't think it says that does it don't think it says what that it can generally be used on i think it's it's all

00:15:07 it's it's all in terms of non-combustible well let's look at an email that you're sent about this kin3020714

00:15:20 sent about this kin3020714 and i want to go to the first email in the chain three emails down on page one it's an email from mr heath

00:15:28 and you are cc'd into it do you see that at the top of the page yes 7th of may 2009 and he says this great news please find attached local authority building

00:15:39 attached local authority building control approval for k-15 rain screen board

00:15:42 board this is what is labc approval under agreement by all local authorities in england and wales design approvals for building types and building systems can be issued by one local authority

00:15:53 can be issued by one local authority and accepted by all other local authorities providing there are no changes in design implementation construction or site-specific variables this approval covers compliance with the building regulations

00:16:05 building regulations a register of approval designs is kept by labc etc and then benefits he says having a building type housing commercial or industrial or a complete building element a system approved by labc means that it can be

00:16:18 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 engineers contractors and builders

00:16:28 builders and then he says this the highlight of this certificate and supporting documentation is the requirement under b4 of adb external fire spread since k-15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility

00:16:40 of limited combustibility it is suitable in all situations shown on diagram 40 of approved document b volume 2 including those parts of a building more than 18 metres above ground

00:16:49 ground in the latter circumstances the cladding system and the substrate to which the insulation is applied must also meet the requirements for limited combustibility where the substrate is a metal framed wall system rather than masonry or

00:17:00 wall system rather than masonry or concrete

00:17:01 concrete non-combustible lining board must be specified to the external face of the metal frame wall e.g calcium silicate board or similar performing and then he says no this statement does not differ from anything

00:17:13 not differ from anything that kingspan states and then he goes on if we can go to the next part

00:17:19 next part k-15 remains the only installation board that successfully met the requirements of the bba and labc system approval all the relevant documents surrounding the approval certificate are attached special thanks to andrew pack for his

00:17:31 special thanks to andrew pack for his inconsistent endeavors do you see that there

00:17:33 there yes now going back to the answer you gave

00:17:37 gave earlier and if we just look at the extract he's put if we go back a page into there it is saying that you can use k15

00:17:49 that you can use k15 on all situations shown on diagram 40. it then says the the cladding system and the substrate to which the insulation is applied must also meet the requirement for limited combustibility

00:18:00 for limited combustibility and where the substrate is a metal-framed wall system rather than masonry

00:18:04 masonry non-combustible lining board must be specified

00:18:07 specified do you see that there yes now what test evidence

00:18:11 evidence did you have that you were aware of that supported

00:18:16 supported that text in that certificate i i wasn't aware of um what tester was i think i asked phillip what he'd what he's done to get the

00:18:29 what he'd what he's done to get the uh approval yes we'll look at that in a minute

00:18:32 minute um looking at at it now what test evidence could there have been to support the use of k-15 in a metal framed wall system

00:18:43 framed wall system provided to use a non-combustible lining board where's that test evidence i don't know i'm i i would have looked at this and i wouldn't i wouldn't have understood it probably in the way that i understand it now

00:18:54 in the way that i understand it now i i wouldn't have understood it then um so i think that would have passed me by i'd have just said well that makes sense um if it's if there's an online

00:19:08 um if it's if there's an online non-compatible lining board um is is internal instead of a masonry or concrete wall that would have made sense to me at the time but even though you had no test

00:19:19 time but even though you had no test evidence to support that i i wasn't that aware of of what the um in terms of what the still frame test was

00:19:31 the still frame test was in the sense that i wouldn't be wouldn't have been aware of what was on the inside

00:19:37 inside but we've looked at documents that show that you were fully aware in 2007 and 2008 that there were tests to 8414

00:19:45 to 8414 part two the steel frame structure and you've been at pains to emphasize that you recognize that was a fail those were failures in that particular system in those systems yes in the light of

00:19:56 in those systems yes in the light of that

00:19:58 that how could you be satisfied that it was appropriate to say that you can use k15 in a metal framed wall system when you knew that system that's being described there had not been tested

00:20:11 described there had not been tested and certainly hadn't passed i i didn't know that

00:20:14 know that that described what was actually tested and i still don't know actually if that described what was tested because it does say non-combustible lining board must be specified to the external face of the metal frame wall so i assumed

00:20:27 frame wall so i assumed that that this was a requirement that labc

00:20:31 labc had put in or were happy with that enabled that type of construction would you agree that clearly this certificate was a cause for celebration

00:20:42 certificate was a cause for celebration within kingspan well yes philippe says great news exclamation mark sir and looking at the part that's in bold material of limited combustibility what

00:20:54 material of limited combustibility what did you understand that to me as i said my complete understanding of material limited combustibility was limited um but clearly phil had considered it important

00:21:06 clearly phil had considered it important because he highlighted it so i i would have assumed that that was

00:21:13 correct and i mean since then i've looked at it and i i understand that there's there's more than one route you can go and that would be a requirement uh that

00:21:24 and that would be a requirement uh that was met by another test but at the time i would have taken that as as being correct you said your understanding was limited

00:21:35 you said your understanding was limited but

00:21:36 but at the time did you consider well what test evidence was that based on

00:21:44 on um well i did ask phil what tests he'd used yes we'll come to that in a moment and and that was an important question for you to ask wasn't it what test evidence is this based on

00:21:57 what test evidence is this based on let's look at that are we going to leave this document now um

00:22:02 um we're going to come to another email string where we've still got that there but if

00:22:06 but if mr chair if you want to ask anything more about it just like to ask dr rochard i mean would you consider k-15 to be a material of limited combustibility now i wouldn't because i know then i

00:22:19 now i wouldn't because i know then i i wouldn't have it wouldn't have struck me as odd should i just say that because as far as i was concerned my mindset was it's phenolic it's it's the best performing um polymeric insulin thermostat

00:22:32 um polymeric insulin thermostat set around maybe maybe that's what it could be so i it could have been referring to the to the material as far as i was concerned at that stage i mean you you didn't know it was combustible because you yes

00:22:44 it was combustible because you yes yes very early on but that that um distinction between limited combustibility if if it had said for example since k-15 can can be considered a

00:22:55 can can be considered a an a2 euro class material yes i would have said

00:22:59 have said hang on it isn't that yes um but zero limited capacity wouldn't have stood out to me and subsequently i would have understood that it had to do some tests

00:23:11 that it had to do some tests in order to to be considered i'm just wondering whether at the time you would have described it yourself

00:23:19 yourself to anyone else as a material of limited combustibility i don't think it's a term i would generally use um i would try to be more specific about what

00:23:28 what tests the past yeah thank you yes it's strange

00:23:32 strange yes as technical director were you not curious to understand precisely what was meant by

00:23:38 meant by material of limited combustibility no i i mean i would have taken the whole paragraph and thought yeah great that's good labc

00:23:49 thought yeah great that's good labc as far as i was concerned

00:23:53 a reputable authority considered the product was suitable above 18 meters therefore that's good news if we can

00:24:04 that's good news if we can look at um the top of this email chain on this page

00:24:18 on this page is there an email above this yeah so we can see that about an hour later on the same day 1610

00:24:29 on the same day 1610 you email just mr heath and you say out of curiosity which fire test results did we use to get this regards malcolm did you see that there yes

00:24:40 did you see that there yes i think we've agreed that that was a very important question wasn't it it with retrospect it is a very important question i was i was curious as what he'd use yeah the fact that it was an hour later i don't

00:24:51 fact that it was an hour later i don't know what

00:24:52 know what whether that's significant or not because we were in different places i could have been doing other things and then we see mr heath's response to you at the top of that page

00:25:03 you at the top of that page later that day

00:25:06 and he says this he says 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

00:25:17 we probably blocked his server in the end i think the labc convinced themselves cool therm is the best thing since sliced bread we didn't even have to get any real ale down him exclamation mark phil do you see that there yes i do yeah

00:25:31 would you agree that that email conveys the impression that he was surprised at how convincing he'd been with the labc

00:25:40 labc not necessarily it i i think i was aware that he and andrew pack

00:25:47 pack were working on this um purely from the the email from phil um and i know andrew is a very uh detailed guy and would would know his

00:26:00 uh detailed guy and would would know his stuff

00:26:00 stuff back to front so if andrew was involved along with phil i would have thought all the

00:26:07 the that the necessary information was provided to the labc

00:26:14 were you surprised yourself at the sections relating to the use of k-15 in buildings over 18 meters in height no that that was what the

00:26:25 no that that was what the certificate clearly it states there in phil's email but you've been telling us that you knew that you still needed to keep on testing

00:26:37 that you still needed to keep on testing to to find an eight for one for part two test that you could pass yes yes that's correct because you knew that

00:26:45 that because we'd failed in those system tests yes and it was clearly there was still a problem there that needed sorting

00:26:50 sorting yes and so you knew that didn't you that the only bit of fire test data you had was the 2005 test at this point yes that was all that was in kingspan's

00:27:02 was all that was in kingspan's file no i did i didn't know that i i assumed there were other fire tests that did he used which are the fire tests

00:27:10 tests i don't know um that was my assumption because

00:27:14 because the fire tests you've been told about sorry let me finish my question in 2007 and 2008 were all failures you've been told you can't get the euro class you've been told you can't get the national class naught

00:27:25 national class naught and you've been told about four failures to eight four one four so how did you think that there was other testing which had justified this result

00:27:34 result sorry we did have euro class we had euro class c s one d naught you were told that you couldn't achieve so dr roche would answer the question we had uh euro class s1c um what i was referring to there

00:27:48 s1c um what i was referring to there sorry if i can clarify was that you'd been told that the euro class he was struggling to get the same euro class

00:27:54 class do you remember we saw that in iva's doctor that was one common from either from either and i i don't know that that was reality or not or one test that i either did on an unknown

00:28:05 one test that i either did on an unknown product that gave that result so i had no proof one without

00:28:10 without i don't know what other tests they were doing at the time at this time

00:28:16 but the way phil phrases that he says we threw every bit of fire test data we could at him so that to me says there's an awful lot of other

00:28:27 other fire test data has gone into it i don't know what that was but that was that was the way he phrased the answer

00:28:36 so should we understand that it was your view at the time that a lot of fire testing was going on of which you weren't aware yeah that's possible uh because um

00:28:47 that's possible uh because um was it your understanding at the time there was a lot of fire testing going on of which you hadn't been informed that's also possible it's it's quite possible because

00:28:58 possible because the technical service department did their own

00:29:02 their own testing and

00:29:06 they also had access to tests with the product being tested in i'd know apart from european tests there were tests singapore tests there were chinese tests there was australian tests i think

00:29:18 tests there was australian tests i think so there was a lot of a lot of other information out there i don't know how convincing it would have been but

00:29:24 been but it's possible that there were other tests it was advertise data right thank you sorry strange that's okay isn't it right that as the person in control of the budget you would have had to sign off on the

00:29:36 you would have had to sign off on the costs of any other testing not if it was done in another department i wouldn't which other department are you talking about it could have been done in um production department operations

00:29:49 um production department operations it could have been done at one of our subsidiaries abroad i i don't know dr richard are you saying this is

00:29:57 this is actually what you thought at the time that there must be other fire test information that i'm not aware of

00:30:04 aware of that doesn't appear in any of the monthly reports or the other technical feedback that i'm getting so i don't need to worry about it because there must be that other body of test data is that

00:30:15 of test data is that what you actually thought at the time that is what i actually thought at the time yes

00:30:21 time yes did you ever get a proper response from mr heath

00:30:24 mr heath this response doesn't actually tell you what test data you used it doesn't answer your question what you ask which fire test results did we use to get this did you ever get a proper response to

00:30:36 did you ever get a proper response to that question i don't think i got anything in writing whether phil came along at some point and i don't know where phil was physically and where i was physically during this interchange so

00:30:48 you're the technical director you can see that this is a great moment in the the lifetime of k15 why didn't you ask for a proper answer to that question

00:30:59 to that question what fire test data did we use to get that why didn't you follow up on it well i i trusted the the department um and i had no reason not to trust them

00:31:13 um and i had no reason not to trust them phillip heath was very experienced guy andrew pack was extremely experienced as well so that was a situation at the time can we go now to a different email from

00:31:25 can we go now to a different email from the 11th of may a little bit later than this

00:31:30 kin405382 with the subject phenolic fire focus group

00:31:37 do you see this so this is an email a few days later on the 11th of may 2009 and you're cc'd in here do you see that yes

00:31:46 yes and it's um attaches the labc system approval certificate we can see that and mr heath says following the success of receiving the attached labc

00:31:57 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 test for ventilated rain screens do you see that there yes

00:32:13 did that make sense to you that the labc accreditation now satisfies the requirements for k-15 being installed above 18 meters

00:32:25 no it didn't surprise me at the time oh sorry didn't um uh can you just rephrase the question yeah did that make sense to you that he's saying that the labc

00:32:36 that he's saying that the labc accreditation now satisfies the requirements for k-15 being installed above 18 meters well yes it did because i i believe that the lapc's certification

00:32:48 i believe that the lapc's certification was was correct so but but how did that make sense you said that you knew about large scale 8414 testing yes and you you'd been aware that there'd

00:32:59 and you you'd been aware that there'd been failed tests to try and meet that test standard failed system tests yes i don't know the details how the details of the system

00:33:10 system compared with the details as as put down in the labc certificate so my assumption would have been that

00:33:19 been that if provided that labc advice is followed then that is acceptable right and mr heath is saying now that we've got that certificate we should cease any

00:33:31 got that certificate we should cease any further fire test for ventilated rain screens

00:33:34 screens did you agree with that that it was right to stop testing at this point given what you've got in the labc certificate i can see why you're saying it because of the

00:33:45 it because of the the cost of the tests um i thought we should

00:33:48 should carry on work and i think we did in the focus

00:33:52 focus fire focus groups uh to understand that and add other things as well um about the product to see if we can at some point in the future repeat tests

00:34:04 at some point in the future repeat tests if it was appropriate so it do i get this right that actually at the time you thought you should carry on

00:34:11 on what work on eight four one four large scale testing well no i i could see that we had the labc certification and therefore it wasn't

00:34:22 certification and therefore it wasn't it wasn't a necessity to do the eight four one

00:34:25 four one four part two or part one testing but um clearly we need to get to the bottom of of

00:34:36 we need to get to the bottom of of why it was performing differently and that was the work that i was keen to carry on doing can you explain why the labc certificate meant it wasn't necessary to do the 8414

00:34:49 meant it wasn't necessary to do the 8414 testing can you explain why you were of that understanding from the explanation given by by philip peace

00:34:58 peace but on the basis of what test evidence well that as i said i i had us assumed that there was a lot of test evidence given um a lot of details given to the labc to

00:35:12 um a lot of details given to the labc to achieve this certificate i see and then he goes on at in excess of 15k per test both the sales and business development teams should be adept enough to use their toolkit to the full

00:35:24 toolkit to the full 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 yes and then he goes on this saving will allow other

00:35:35 goes on this saving will allow other applications and the call them 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

00:35:45 grown therefore the focus on this group should be on the other cool theme applications where we do not have the complete sales toolkit

00:35:51 toolkit we should also be considering fire test smoke test 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

00:36:03 marketing story these should be tabled now that last sentence did you think that was appropriate for mr heath to be saying in this email that you should consider fire test smoke tests that may not be relevant for either construction or end-use

00:36:14 for either construction or end-use application provided it's got a good marketing story they should be tabled well i can see i can see

00:36:21 can see it looks like it's just doing it for marketing reasons from from my point of view

00:36:25 view any tests that um showed the phenolic product

00:36:29 product in a positive light were worth pursuing because you never know whether they might

00:36:33 might when they might be useful uh in the future and if it's yes i mean marketing were making and selling products so you'd obviously try and do things and

00:36:44 you'd obviously try and do things and then see if you try and do things that that could potentially give you a new market but you'd also look at what tests you've got and what other markets you can get into

00:36:55 into it's a natural commercial activity

00:36:59 did you think it was appropriate to be providing

00:37:03 providing test relevant test evidence that might not be relevant provided it's got a good marketing story did you endorse that approach as technical director

00:37:13 no i think what he's saying there maybe i've misread it but what he's saying there um it may not be relevant for the over construction and use application

00:37:24 construction and use application uh what

00:37:27 uh what what can we do to show that phenolic is a better

00:37:31 a better material in terms of its fire performance and insulation performance um compared to other insulin materials that was a a natural thing to try and do

00:37:42 that was a a natural thing to try and do for the cool firm brand i see just standing back from this email and thinking about this email in the great news email would you agree that you knew full well at this time that this was a get out of

00:37:55 at this time that this was a get out of jail card

00:37:56 jail card it bought kingspan time because it was not managing to pass the 8414 part two that's the reality isn't it no i didn't think that i thought this was

00:38:07 think that i thought this was uh an alternative route they'd gone for accreditation of um eight four one four uh part two or above 18 meters

00:38:19 uh part two or above 18 meters and therefore was valid in its own right so

00:38:23 so um that was that was my approach to it and what was that alternative route i don't know i i mean i certainly didn't know at the time i just um

00:38:34 time i just um assumed that the labc had been uh convinced

00:38:37 convinced and as a reputable body that they the the the certificate was correct did you think that that that other body of test evidence that you hadn't seen included tests at 8414

00:38:50 you hadn't seen included tests at 8414 that was shown to the labc did you assume that at the time i don't know i i don't know what i assumed at the time in terms of what those tests were

00:39:04 and did you agree with the decision to stop testing

00:39:08 i can see from a cost point of view it made sense if we didn't need to do the tests because i think i think that 15 k was probably an

00:39:19 i think that 15 k was probably an underestimate for what the tests cost um it was also taking a lot of resource

00:39:25 resource so if we actually didn't need to do the tests then it was sensible to apply that resource elsewhere if we can look now

00:39:32 look now at some meeting minutes and kin3020737

00:39:45 this is the first meeting of the fire focus group on phenolic do you see that there

00:39:50 there yes and your present either meredith takes the minutes yes do you see that then if we look on page one

00:40:03 we can see we read under background 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

00:40:14 technology cool firm there are several fire performance requirements that are crucial for sales of phenolic however in some areas on development phenolic products we are falling just short of the mark this

00:40:25 falling just short of the mark this group was originally pulled together as we believe we must have the bs 8414 parts one and two far test for masonry and steel frame prior fire propagation test on cool thumb k15

00:40:37 fire propagation test on cool thumb k15 then it says this following the recent release of the k-15 bba and the labc land tech approval this urgent requirement has been relaxed as the documents are working to cover the regulatory desires for

00:40:49 the regulatory desires for specific system approval other areas of concern relate to the surface spread fire performance of the product that we are concerned may have reduced this can be seen in

00:41:00 may have reduced this can be seen in recent 476 part 7 tests and the most recent attempt at you ul for the new technology cool duct tape that's

00:41:09 that's underwriters laboratory that you yeah yeah so can you see there it's clearly being recorded in a meeting that you're present at that the urgent requirement for that 8414 testing has been relaxed

00:41:22 8414 testing has been relaxed as the documents are working to cover the regulatory desires for specific system approval do you see that yes what did what did you understand that to me when you read it

00:41:34 me when you read it how could those documents be covering the regulatory desires for specific system approval if you hadn't had any

00:41:41 had any passes to 8414 i would have assumed it was it was correct that there was an alternative route to to get this specific system approval

00:41:52 specific system approval i see

00:41:58 the sentence um we still need to look at developing a product that will be able to pass a bs 8414 part 2 test confirms that kingspan did not have any

00:42:09 confirms that kingspan did not have any version of k-15 in may 2005 which is part of a system could pass a large-scale fire test to bs 8414 that's right isn't it

00:42:21 can you just re repeat that question yes the sentence we still need to look at developing a product that will be able to pass a bs 8414 test

00:42:32 a bs 8414 test where does it say that sorry

00:42:37 sorry maybe that's further down

00:42:41 yes i'm so sorry i'm sorry an item two i beg your pardon still on on page one oh right okay sorry it's there if under cool them k-15 facade test it says

00:42:54 under cool them k-15 facade test it says following discussions it was agreed that we still need to look at developing a product

00:42:58 product that will be able to pass a bs 8414 part 2 test

00:43:02 2 test as a backup to the labc documentation do you see that there yes so does that confirm that kingspan didn't have any version of at this time may 2009 which is part of a

00:43:14 at this time may 2009 which is part of a system

00:43:15 system could pass the large-scale fire test to part two of eight four one four well we knew that we'd be done probably by this time four um eight four one four part two system

00:43:26 um eight four one four part two system test with

00:43:27 test with with other suppliers um so uh the fact that it would be desirable to get a ps8414 part two test

00:43:38 desirable to get a ps8414 part two test um

00:43:40 um made sense

00:43:44 i see in fact it's right isn't it and we'll come to this later that no further 8414 testing actually was carried out again until 2014

00:43:54 2014 that's correct yes yeah

00:43:58 sorry can i just take one step back as far as i know that's correct there might have been some indicatives that i didn't know about for example when in one of the chains of emails uh quinn

00:44:11 in one of the chains of emails uh quinn asked the question about did an old process fail the test and and iva says yes it did indicated to me there must have been a test that i wasn't aware of so

00:44:22 test that i wasn't aware of so there could have been other tests out there right

00:44:27 now you were asked by the inquiry if you had at any stage be made aware of any complaints about kingspan in relation to k15 and if we go to your response in your

00:44:38 and if we go to your response in your witness statement this is at paragraph 4.15 on page 17.

00:44:47 you say there that you're aware that during the period july 13 to november 13 an issue did arise in respect of concerns about the fire performance of k-15 raised by wind tech he described themselves as facade

00:44:59 he described themselves as facade engineering consultants do you see that there

00:45:02 there yes and i want to move on to some questions about those issues with wintec if we can go to kin405683

00:45:13 if we can go to kin405683 and i want to look on page two about two-thirds of the way down the page

00:45:20 there's an email there from gareth mills do you see there and it's um cc to you 24th of july 2013. do you see that there

00:45:34 and the title of the email is downing developments k15 jobs 18 meter wind tech issues

00:45:40 issues do you see that yep and then he says that we may need to re-look at the issues we are having with regards to some of the k-15 jobs i've highlighted in recent weeks

00:45:51 in recent weeks specifically for the two downing development jobs i've been in contact with andy russell of the bre to aid with the assessment that they were doing as per discussions last week

00:46:01 last week that he has advised key clad today that due to the limited test data we have they are not able to complete the assessment and said we either need a bs 8414 part 2 result

00:46:12 8414 part 2 result apparently would not have to exactly match the proposed construction provided it was a bs 8414 part 2 rain screen result or a limited combustibility or better test result

00:46:23 result which would if available negate the need for the assessment and then following getting this information via anthony martin of key clad

00:46:32 clad um john lazal the key clad md has phoned up not very happy and has asked if either tony or malcolm can ring him in the morning to discuss the resolutions

00:46:43 the resolutions do you see that there yes

00:46:48 [Music] now

00:46:52 did you know what discussions he's referring to do you see in that second paragraph in the second line he says as per our discussions last week specifically for the two darling developed jobs i've been in contact with

00:47:03 developed jobs i've been in contact with andy russell of the bre to aid with the assessment they are doing as per our discussions last week had you been involved in any discussions i don't think so i think this is this is to tony uh and iva so yeah i know i'm copied in but

00:47:17 and iva so yeah i know i'm copied in but i don't think i was involved you don't recall those [Applause] i think this is i think he's copied me because

00:47:26 because uh the key cloud md wants to talk to someone senior about it i i would assume that's

00:47:31 that's yes yes that that appears and then going down to page three looking at the rest of his email

00:47:40 um he sets out what the system was um on that wall construction plasterboard steel stud filled with rock wool versa panel etc

00:47:51 panel etc and then he gives some details of horizontal and vertical cavity barriers and then he says this in the penultimate paragraph

00:47:59 paragraph if anyone has any advice on how to progress key cloud wants us to do a further bs 8414 test although this may not be practical so any advice would be appreciated do you see that there yes

00:48:12 do you see that there yes and we've seen he's asked that either tony miller chap or you call the managing director of key clad um now moving up the chain in the middle of page two we can see that you respond

00:48:24 page two we can see that you respond the following morning on the 25th of july

00:48:29 and you say gareth i'm in meetings all morning but should be able to call him about 1pm

00:48:34 about 1pm please let him know either please forward or link me to our bs 8414 pass result

00:48:40 result do you see that there

00:48:44 why did you step in at this point and not leave it to tony miller to deal with i assume tony was was busy um i the guy is after

00:48:57 um i the guy is after talking to someone senior whether i had a conversation with tony or not i don't know but

00:49:01 know but uh that would be the only reason incidentally i can't remember if i did talk to him or if i don't i'll come to that i'll come to that if your involvement in fire testing was only at a high level what did you hope

00:49:13 only at a high level what did you hope to contribute to this particular discussion with them i was only involved because as far as i understand that the key clad and md had asked to talk to one of us so

00:49:24 asked to talk to one of us so that would be the only reason and when you say please forward or link me to our bs 8414 pass results that could only be the test from may 2005 yes

00:49:34 2005 yes i assume so yes on the masonry system yes which you knew predated the change to new technology k15 yes um yes well i think i would have known

00:49:47 um yes well i think i would have known by the yeah yes

00:49:51 oh i'm sorry apparently the transcript stopped

00:49:57 okay sorry i think there's been a problem with the system oh do we need to take a break okay how long do you think it might take five minutes we have a break now then

00:50:08 five minutes we have a break now then and we might as well take the afternoon break early yes that's sensible um we always have a break in the afternoon doctor rocks but we don't normally have it as early as this but his own existence in the circumstances we'll take it now

00:50:19 in the circumstances we'll take it now and we'll come back at 10 past three please okay and no discussing your evidence

00:50:24 evidence all right thank you very much

00:50:33 right ten past three

01:05:18 good now first question as far as we know is everything working good thank you very much well we've now had our break so we're ready to keep cracking on would you ask dr rochefort to come in

01:05:34 please

01:05:44 all right dr worship well ready to carry on i hope

01:05:47 on i hope yes thank you very much yes it's great yes thank you we were looking at an email chain which is relevant to concerns that have been raised by wintec in 2013. if we could go back to that chain kin

01:05:59 chain kin 405683 and if i can pick it up at the top of page two

01:06:08 so we can see that joel clark has sent you

01:06:12 you the following link uh the following will link you to our bs 8414 test report do you see that there yeah i sent you a link

01:06:22 and then the next email up in the chain is from you it starts at the bottom of page one and on to page two if we just pick it up just look at the start of it so we can see you've sent it to joel clark

01:06:35 see you've sent it to joel clark cc and gareth mills tony miller chap iva meredith

01:06:39 meredith and then if we look at what you've said at the top of page two you say thanks i'm checking but what does the part 2 test involve regards malcolm do you see that

01:06:50 involve regards malcolm do you see that there

01:06:52 there yes sorry did you not know in 2013 what the bs 8414 part 2 test involved

01:07:01 involved i think in terms of detail i didn't no did you know it was a test on a steel frame structure i think i probably would have known that right

01:07:12 right but i'm sorry what i was going to say was certainly after the meeting with wintec i definitely knew it but i think i probably would have known it at this point yeah

01:07:24 at this point yeah i mean we've looked at a lot of notes from

01:07:27 from 2007 2008 when the 8414 part 2 test tests are taking place on the steel frame systems so do you agree that by this time you

01:07:39 so do you agree that by this time you would have understood that it would have involved a steel frame system even if you didn't know a bit more about the detail of it yes i think that that's a better clarification thank you yeah and then is in his email back to

01:07:50 yeah and then is in his email back to you about halfway down page one sent at um 13 35 we go to that now

01:07:58 um joel clark says hi malcolm attached the primary difference is substrate part two specifically for steel frame structures and then he says i don't think there is a major difference in the test

01:08:09 a major difference in the test configuration and method just that this deals specifically with steel frame buildings and then he says part two is i believe now explicitly referenced in part b of the building regulations and then he

01:08:21 of the building regulations and then he says our 84141 test was undertaken on steel frame with non-combustible substrate prior to part two being issued as i understand it

01:08:32 part two being issued as i understand it do you see that there yes now did you pick up at the time that mr clark a senior technical advisor was telling you

01:08:43 telling you that it was a test on a steel frame the 8414 part one test did that make any sense to you it probably shouldn't have made any sense but i'm in the middle of

01:08:56 sense but i'm in the middle of i presumably trying to prep for a uh telephone conversation and joe was sending me some information so i would have assumed that there was a steel frame involved

01:09:08 that there was a steel frame involved with the part with that eight four one four part one test but um i agree in retrospect it doesn't seem to make any any sense but would you agree if you read the test

01:09:19 would you agree if you read the test report that was sent to you by mr clark you would have understood that that 2005 test

01:09:24 test was carried out on a masonry substrate

01:09:29 presumably i would have done you've been telling us up to today that your understanding was that k-15 could only be used on buildings provided it was with a masonry substrate that's right isn't it

01:09:43 masonry substrate that's right isn't it with a non-combustible uh substrate that was that was my understanding with a masonry substrate i think is what you said earlier on today i said masonry or cementitious yeah

01:09:55 i said masonry or cementitious yeah non-combustible substrate if we go to the very top of the email chain we can see another email from you and

01:10:06 we can see another email from you and you say this just checked our no our test bre 220876 was on a block work substrate however it does appear that a bs 8414 part 2

01:10:17 part 2 only came out in 2005 and our test was completed in 2005 so it's possible that it was the only test available at the time bs84 part 1 came out in 2002

01:10:29 bs84 part 1 came out in 2002 and then you say in ivor's absence could you or gareth please check when we could reschedule a bs 8414 part two

01:10:37 part two and the limited combustibility test what standard is this question mark so we have this information to hand presumably the latter will be quicker do

01:10:48 presumably the latter will be quicker do you see that there yes so is it right that at this time you wanted to schedule a limited combustibility test for k-15 uh yes and i clearly didn't know what it was

01:10:59 know what it was so that's why i'm asking i think i think i must have read the report

01:11:07 and were you unaware at the time that k-15 could not ever passed such a test or or tests to get limited combustibility it could never achieve a1 or a2

01:11:18 achieve a1 or a2 or the right test under 8414. sorry 476 part 11 could it i i certainly would have known it couldn't have been an a1 or a2 um

01:11:30 have been an a1 or a2 um i don't think i was familiar with the 476 part 11.

01:11:38 right

01:11:42 now looking at the correspondence with joel clark and gareth mills do you consider that you were in fact in a position to assist with the queries that had been raised by wintec

01:11:56 probably not because i don't think i was very well briefed on it but i assumed this was a question of talking to a customer and finding out what exactly the problem was what was the outcome of your discussions

01:12:08 what was the outcome of your discussions with key clad can you remember i think i do recall that i spoke to someone when i was in seoul in south korea and whether this

01:12:20 seoul in south korea and whether this was that

01:12:21 was that that occasion um it might have been um i can't even remember his name what did you tell them did you tell them it was okay to use k-15

01:12:31 k-15 no i i i would have i think it's from my vague recollection of the south korea

01:12:38 korea phone call it was um he was asking about tests

01:12:42 tests um and i was trying to clarify that and would have got back to whoever it was was was dealing with it right

01:12:53 now if we look at your witness statement at this point the um paragraph 4.16 on page 17.

01:13:05 um paragraph 4.16 on page 17. you you say this you say wintec were concerned that kingspan did not have an 8414 part two test on k-15 that is to say a test with a steel frame substrate as opposed to a masonry substrate

01:13:16 substrate this matter had been escalated to me and to resolve it i liaised internally with the technical projects team to confirm the basis upon which to respond i met wintec personnel and was involved

01:13:28 i met wintec personnel and was involved in some correspondence with those involved at windtech in order to try and resolve those concerns by referring them to the bba certificate and labc documentation that we had at

01:13:39 and labc documentation that we had at that time

01:13:41 that time following this exchange with wintec and others in the industry i recall that we conducted a program of further 8414 part 2 testing do you see that there

01:13:49 there yes i do yeah can you help us how did you try and resolve their concerns by reference to the bba certificate and the labc documentation

01:14:01 documentation i think that would have been what was available to me at the time um i'm not sure

01:14:10 why i was talking to wintec without advice from tony or phil it would have been tony at this time uh whether tony was not available or not i don't know but uh would you agree that there was

01:14:22 uh would you agree that there was nothing referred to in the bba certificate or the labc documentation which referred to a successful pass to 8414 part two on a steel framed substrate i believe that that that was

01:14:35 substrate i believe that that that was the case

01:14:36 the case um and following the meeting with wind tech i think that that was made clear to me and is it right that in october 2013 you met with paul savage and stuart taylor of

01:14:47 paul savage and stuart taylor of windtech

01:14:48 windtech along with the uk managing director of kingspan peter wilson uh yes why did kingspan's managing director peter wilson attend the meeting with you

01:14:58 with you i think because it was a um a major customer and a major uh specifier wintec were facade engineering consultants by the time you attended that meeting had you

01:15:10 time you attended that meeting had you learned that k15 was not a product of limited combustibility i again you're using a term that i i wasn't very familiar with and i honestly can't remember what my

01:15:21 and i honestly can't remember what my understanding of that would have been at the time

01:15:24 the time [Music]

01:15:25 [Music] what are your recollections of that meeting in terms of what was said about k-15

01:15:29 k-15 suitability for use above 80 meters i can't remember details but i did take some

01:15:35 some notes in my diary i think from that meeting i don't know if you've had a copy of that have you have we before

01:15:43 we'll check i'm not aware that we've had a call oh okay

01:15:48 okay we'll check what do those notes say i mean you've obviously looked at them they're they're notes to myself so they don't make a lot of sense but it just says

01:15:57 says um no i i honestly can't remember the details you need to look at look at the details they're not extensive notes they're just okay

01:16:06 okay and and i was i was told that you've been sent the diary extract so can i ask you where the diary is no the diary

01:16:15 diary is has been completely um photocopied the whole lot and i understood and then it's been looked at in detail

01:16:26 and then it's been looked at in detail and certain relevant sections have been copied as i understood the council um right we'll we'll make our own

01:16:37 um right we'll we'll make our own inquiries but just in case we needed uh any any further help do you have the diary

01:16:43 diary i have the diary yeah i i'm a bit of a hoarder i i keep the oldest and it has been it's looked it took a long time to go through everything um yeah so do you have any other notebooks

01:16:53 notebooks or diaries or any records no that was the only thing and it it's it's something i i just do out of habit i i will take this perhaps you would ensure that you don't part with it absolutely no no i i definitely didn't

01:17:05 absolutely no no i i definitely didn't but

01:17:06 but i i was under the impression that you had got all these maybe we haven't but um i just wanted to be clear of where we are again we've had a lot of very late disclosure from kingspan that we've been

01:17:18 disclosure from kingspan that we've been trying to

01:17:19 trying to look through as a matter of urgency so we will follow up on that um you're referring your witness statement to an exchange of correspondence following that meeting with wintec can we go to those emails it's at

01:17:33 can we go to those emails it's at kin403823

01:17:35 kin403823 and i want to look on page two to your email to wintech sent on the 31st of october

01:17:41 october 2013 at 13 25.

01:17:46 do you see that there and you say thank you for seeing us this morning so it's to paul savage and stuart taylor and it's cece and peter wilson and mark harris

01:17:56 harris and you say thank you for seeing us this morning to discuss for our facade installation systems we were pleased to hear you would like to do more work involving kingspan's insulation systems

01:18:07 kingspan's insulation systems and then you say as mentioned we are confident that our k15 rain screen board is suitable for facade use above 18 meters

01:18:15 meters given the correct design and installation and i enclose our bba and labc

01:18:19 labc certification to this effect as you are aware we have been successfully assessed by the bba and labc on the basis of our bs 8414 part 1 test

01:18:31 on the basis of our bs 8414 part 1 test conducted at the bre and have not seen the necessity of an extensive test program

01:18:36 program to bs 8414 part 2 considering the apparent contradictory advice in the scope of

01:18:43 scope of eight four one four part two see scope of parts one and two attached and then you go on however i note your concern that the bre are reluctant to assess

01:18:52 assess for certain constructions to br 135 on the basis of our existing test result and we'll discuss this matter with them tony baker as you suggest as discussed we will target resolving

01:19:03 as discussed we will target resolving this issue within six months if further testing is required by then or sooner if not i hope do you see that there yes yes now going back to the start of that paragraph you say as mentioned we are

01:19:15 paragraph you say as mentioned we are confident that our k15 range screen board is suitable for facade use above 18 meters given correct design and installation and i enclosed those certificates you don't say there

01:19:27 those certificates you don't say there do you it's only suitable on a masonry substrate

01:19:31 substrate no i i was using the advice from the bba and labc certificates and you don't explain that um you go on

01:19:42 and you don't explain that um you go on and you talk about your um eight four one four part one test you've been successfully assessed by the bba and labc on the basis of that 8414 part one test conducted at the bre

01:19:53 part one test conducted at the bre and have not seen the necessity of an extensive test program you don't explain to them that you've changed

01:20:00 changed the composition of k-15 to new technology k-15 since that time do you i don't know and you don't explain do you that there had been

01:20:11 had been a test program to 8414 part 2 in 2007 and 2008 which resulted in a number of

01:20:19 number of very significant failures do you they were systems um they were commercial systems from other companies and it wouldn't be appropriate to to

01:20:30 appropriate to to divulge information about them

01:20:35 so that would be the reason for that in what design or installation circumstances did you in october 2013 consider k-15 to be suitable

01:20:45 suitable for facade use over 18 meters i would have used the bba and labc certification so that's why i was

01:20:53 i was emailing it to them yes but as you've stated there that's on the basis of the 8414 part one test

01:21:01 test done in 2005. yes yes so how how were you relying on that in it in a steel frame situation part

01:21:12 in it in a steel frame situation part two situation and given you've now changed the k-15 that you're actually producing and selling

01:21:20 selling well as far as the certification was concerned that that was my understanding that that gave us the ability to do it um with the um the old technology new technology change

01:21:32 the old technology new technology change uh

01:21:33 uh as we've discussed yes there was a change my view was that the um the product itself was not vastly different in terms of its um its construction anyway but

01:21:46 its construction anyway but at this time

01:21:50 i'm not sure what my understanding of that what was tested in 2005 was actually um

01:21:59 by then sorry i mean i hadn't been looking at it for quite a few years and by then i don't think i was as clear about what what that was sorry the test was carried out at the

01:22:12 sorry the test was carried out at the time when we were changing the technologies why are you giving this advice if you're not that clear in your own mind this is you know that serious concerns have been raised about the use of k-15 above 18 meters

01:22:24 above 18 meters it's been escalated up to you peter wilson is now involved how can you be giving this advice if you're not completely sure the basis on which you're giving it i'm not giving advice i'm just i'm just

01:22:35 i'm not giving advice i'm just i'm just giving them information that that's they're the they're the experts in this i'm just giving them information and um to be honest this wasn't a normal activity i would undertake

01:22:46 activity i would undertake i don't i i've been um i've been involved in this because the the issue was escalated so following that uh meeting that we had on

01:22:59 following that uh meeting that we had on the 31st of october um then i would have been aware that they needed a eight four one four part two test with respect you're not just giving

01:23:10 test with respect you're not just giving information here you're saying in that first line of that second paragraph we are confident that our k-15 range screen board is suitable for facade use over 18 meters

01:23:21 meters given the correct design and installation yes and you enclose the bba and labc certificate to this effect yes and you say you've been successfully assessed by those organizations on the

01:23:32 assessed by those organizations on the basis of the 8414 part one test yes so on the basis of that one test you're giving this advice well that was my understanding at the time i mean with hindsight can i ask you

01:23:46 with hindsight can i ask you just to help me with this you um you refer to the correct design and installation what what systems

01:23:54 systems did you understand uh k15 could be used as part of my understanding was that it could be used against a non-combustible substrate yes

01:24:07 a non-combustible substrate yes with a non-combustible cladding material that was my understanding that was the limit of its scope of use as far as you understood as far as i understood yes

01:24:19 understood yes yes right thank you and when you say non-combustible substrate do you mean non-combustible substrate on a steel frame i i don't think i would have been

01:24:30 i i don't think i would have been considering that actually either way if someone told me that that was acceptable i would have but that has been acceptable that's what said in the labc certificate we looked at that earlier it says you can use it in a steel frame

01:24:42 it says you can use it in a steel frame system with a non-combustible substrate do you recall yeah well that's why i would have that's why i would have assumed yes but non-combustible what test evidence was there that k-15 could be used on a

01:24:56 that k-15 could be used on a non-combustible substrate like a calcium silicate board which is what's said in the labc certificate with a steel frame system where was the test evidence to support that i had assumed that the test evidence

01:25:07 i had assumed that the test evidence that this

01:25:08 that this 8414 part one test that was done gave the um ability to be able to use that against any non-combustible substrate that would have been my understanding of it

01:25:19 understanding of it and even though you've changed the technology of k-15 since and all you've had since on eight four one four is a series of failures on the on systems with other people we

01:25:31 on the on systems with other people we did four tests and i think there were four failures that's correct now

01:25:39 you go on to say from the end of that sixth line you say we saw it however i note your concern that the bre are reluctant to assess for certain constructions to bl-135 on the basis of our existing

01:25:51 basis of our existing test result what was the concern that the bre

01:25:55 the bre reluctant to assess for certain constructions what were those certain constructions i i can't recall but presumably that was steel frame and then you say as discussed we'll target resolving this issue within six

01:26:07 target resolving this issue within six months if further testing is required by then

01:26:12 did you accept at the time that wind tech's concerns were valid ones to be raising i think that they'd obviously convinced me and presumably peter wilson in the meeting and

01:26:24 meeting and i see mark harris i think was also involved in the meeting that um they were serious concerns so i think

01:26:31 think um possibly prior to this they they might have been seen as

01:26:41 causing trouble but a bit bit of an irritant rather than anything else i think following this meeting you could see that they're serious see that they've got a valid point and therefore

01:26:52 therefore we need to be working on it when you say prior to this they might have been seen as causing trouble by who who had thought i just think from probably from the sales team now if we remove to

01:27:04 team now if we remove to win text response now which is the next email up in the chain sent by paul savage the same day 22 11 we go up to the top

01:27:16 11 we go up to the top there we see his response and in essence i'll read it out to you paul savage urges kingspan to either have k-15 reclassified or conduct further fire testing

01:27:30 or conduct further fire testing um he does say um although i do appreciate that the scope of this specific standard is stated to exclude range screens and external render systems

01:27:41 external render systems which is what i pointed out to him in my email right so he says with regard to your comment in respect to not undertake an 8414 test although i do appreciate that the scope of this

01:27:52 do appreciate that the scope of this specific standard is stated to exclude rain screens and in external render systems i would ask how you intend to validate the use of k15 in conjunction with a steel frame system

01:28:03 conjunction with a steel frame system cement board build up as there appeared to be no test standard to cover this do you see that there

01:28:11 so what was the point you were making about the scope of 841 for part two had you tried to say that that was limited in some way yeah i think i'd i'd read that probably

01:28:22 i think i'd i'd read that probably for the first time for a number of years anyway i'd read the 841. part one and two um i think either just after his meeting or prior to the meeting

01:28:31 meeting and it clearly stated in this in the scope

01:28:35 scope that it was it excluded rain screens and external render systems so it was it was odd that that that the standard said that and i was i was pointing that out to paul savage and

01:28:47 was pointing that out to paul savage and stuart

01:28:48 stuart i see but he's going on isn't he and he's saying although he appreciates that he's asking how you intend to validate the use of k15 in conjunction with a steel frame system cement board buildup

01:29:00 system cement board buildup as that appeared to be no test standard to cover this so he's saying well even if you're right about that how are you going to validate that

01:29:07 that because there would be no test standard yeah i think he makes a good a good point

01:29:12 point yeah and then he says part b of the building regulation still requires that either a material of limited combustibility is used or a test to bs 8414 or bl-135

01:29:23 or a test to bs 8414 or bl-135 assessment is undertaken when used in instances over 18 meters high do you see that there

01:29:29 there yeah or an equivalent assessment body a sufficient bank of test data to provide yeah vr135 desktops when he's talking about a material being either of limited combustibility or used in the 8414 test by this time did you

01:29:41 in the 8414 test by this time did you understand what a material of limited combustibility meant i don't think i did in fact i think on my diary notes um which i'm sure you'll find it's it would be for this date 31st of october

01:29:52 would be for this date 31st of october well i'm being told they're not disclosed to us that that's oh um that was my understanding of what they were

01:29:58 they were well it could be if we asked for them could they yes i'm sure they could be um and i don't sorry if they are disclosed they've not been disclosed to core

01:30:09 they've not been disclosed to core participants sorry they've been disclosed to us but they haven't yet been disclosed to others right okay okay well let's just press on with this for a

01:30:20 let's just press on with this for a moment but i i there's actually a note to myself about check

01:30:25 check limit check limited combustibility so obviously i i wasn't clear about that and what date is that note made it's made on this day 31st of october 2013.

01:30:34 2013. right it's it's handwritten notes for the meeting and that's the first time you thought to check what limited combustibility meant is it well it's being raised with me and um i'm obviously reading his response i

01:30:46 um i'm obviously reading his response i presume

01:30:46 presume well no they must have said this in the meeting because i think they meet the notes are from the meeting and then he goes on generally wind tech is contractually obliged to ensure our clients building facades comply with building regulations

01:30:57 building regulations without documented proof we cannot do this for your k-15 board and then he says i do hope that you're planning to proceed with testing following your discussions with bre

01:31:09 following your discussions with bre as we stated bre have relayed to wintec that their view is that the test kingspan have already undertaken simply justifies that the construction tested complies with the requirements of bs-84

01:31:19 bs-84 part one only and that this single test cannot be used to infer that all other forms of ins construction including k-15 boards are also accepted do you see that and then if we go down

01:31:33 do you see that and then if we go down to the next paragraph he says until such a reclassification is confirmed all the provision of satisfactory test data is made available wintec cannot alter our position on the

01:31:44 wintec cannot alter our position on the use of this material for facades over 18 meters high and we'll have no alternative but to recommend to our clients that your k-15 board

01:31:52 board is not considered for such applications unless supported with appropriate project specific testing or a br 135 assessment and then he says during our meeting i understood that

01:32:03 during our meeting i understood that there is now a commitment from kingspan to undertake such tests and to provide the test data within a six-month period and then he says following completion of this period

01:32:16 if the situation remains unresolved wind tech will have no alternative but to make public our concerns to the industry at large this stance may not always be appreciated by our clients nevertheless we do take fire safety very seriously

01:32:28 we do take fire safety very seriously and of course have a deity of care to public safety with regard to the inconsistencies within 8414 other documents noted and poorly drafted clauses in it means adb i trust that the underlying

01:32:39 it means adb i trust that the underlying requirement of preventing the spread of fire

01:32:41 fire up building facades is clear and that kingspan will behave in a responsible manner to properly resolve the doubt over the use of k-15 and not be distracted by such inconsistencies do you see that there yes absolutely

01:32:53 do you see that there yes absolutely yeah now is this the reason kingspan then began a further program of testing in january 2004 2014 to bs 8414 part two that that's my understanding

01:33:05 part two that that's my understanding that this was yes so it's the threat of exposure to the wider industry that prompted that restarting of 8414 part two tests do you agree

01:33:17 part two tests do you agree no i think it's more a realization if if you like it at senior level that there was an issue here around the certification

01:33:28 here around the certification well dr rochford what i'm going to put to you is that you always knew there was an issue

01:33:32 an issue around the certification but the labc certificate had brought you time but when that expired and when consultants like wind tech started

01:33:43 consultants like wind tech started raising their concerns kingsman were forced into the position of having to start that program of testing again do you agree no

01:33:55 so why hadn't kingspan been testing to bs 8414 part 2 prior to this point what we had a few years earlier obviously um along with with other customers i

01:34:08 um along with with other customers i as far as i was concerned at this time you can see from my email i believed that the labc and bba certification was enough but we've just discussed that the only

01:34:19 but we've just discussed that the only thing that had to underpin it was a 2005 test that was on old technology k-15 i know with hindsight but at the time that was my that was actually what i believed

01:34:29 believed but can you accept that with hindsight that was wholly inappropriate to take that position to take what position sorry that it was appropriate to rely on that one single 8414 test from 2005

01:34:42 single 8414 test from 2005 on old technology k15 in a masonry situation

01:34:47 situation i i think it was it was with hindsight it was inappropriate to rely on um yes uh i do agree with that

01:34:58 yes uh i do agree with that but at the time my belief was that the certification from labc and bba gave us enough uh that satisfied the requirement yeah

01:35:09 that satisfied the requirement yeah you respond to paul savage the following day top of your email at page one and you say

01:35:18 dear paul i think you may have misinterpreted my response sorry if i didn't make it clear i will be discussing with the bre what is required and go with their recommendations i understand from either that tony bacon longer works in that area he recommended

01:35:30 longer works in that area he recommended i discuss the matter with his successor and then you say kingsman always acts in a responsible manner do you see that there yes do you stand by that comment is that your evidence

01:35:41 by that comment is that your evidence against band did always act in a responsible manner that was that was my my belief why not tell wintec about the new technology k15 and that

01:35:52 about the new technology k15 and that you'd had no relevant fire test results since developing that new product because i that was my belief i believe that the

01:36:01 that the uh labc and bba certification uh was enough um but now he's drawn it to my attention um we want to do the further 8414

01:36:15 um we want to do the further 8414 part 2 testing

01:36:21 what consideration did you give to the issues of public safety that wintec had raised

01:36:27 raised well obviously do you take it seriously yes how did you satisfy yourself at that stage

01:36:33 stage in 2013 that safe advice clear and accurate advice was being given about the use of k-15 on buildings over 18 meters

01:36:44 again as as far as i was concerned that the

01:36:47 the advice being given was to um skilled people and giving them the information that we had available so

01:36:58 available so as far as i was concerned they each system that was was um designed and put into use was appropriately designed

01:37:09 you said that you were you now were aware that you needed to do more tests um after this um exchange with wintec did you do anything about the fact that

01:37:20 did you do anything about the fact that no one had thought to draw this position to your attention before october 2013. uh no i don't think i did uh i think that the conversation with wintec

01:37:33 that the conversation with wintec probably started with it in july 2013 didn't it

01:37:36 didn't it in terms of the the key clad

01:37:40 did you do anything about the fact that no one had thought to draw this position to your attention before wintec did i mean it doesn't matter when they did but dude because sorry sorry i didn't mean to

01:37:52 because sorry sorry i didn't mean to interrupt um no because my understanding was that um the labc and bba certification was was sufficient um and clearly

01:38:04 was sufficient um and clearly wintec had a problem with that uh they weren't going to recommend our products it made sense to to to

01:38:11 to to do the 8414 part 2 testing so is it fair to say that the position was this you didn't fully understand on what basis the labc certificate was based but you were nevertheless happy

01:38:23 nevertheless happy to rely upon it when it came to exchanges like this for this particular exchange i was because i wasn't i i definitely wasn't um talking to someone who was

01:38:35 who was unaware of the situation these were experts in in the area so i knew that anything i said would be analyzed extremely carefully by by wind tech i would not normally get involved in in

01:38:48 i would not normally get involved in in these kind of discussions with customers or specifiers it wasn't it wasn't my area of expertise

01:38:57 but sorry i'm going to put that to you again was the position this that you didn't fully understand on what basis the labc certificate was based but you were nevertheless happy to rely on it when it came to exchanges like

01:39:08 on it when it came to exchanges like this with wintec because i believe the labc certificate was correct even though you didn't fully understand on what evidence it was based as i said before i trusted the technical

01:39:20 as i said before i trusted the technical team to

01:39:21 team to advise me correctly on that okay let's move on now to the tests of 8414 part 2 which were carried out by kingspan in 2014. would you accept that this

01:39:34 2014. would you accept that this exchange with wintec had placed kingspan under some pressure to provide evidence from testing to 8414 part 2 on systems incorporating k15

01:39:45 part 2 on systems incorporating k15 i think it had certainly focused our attention

01:39:50 were you also aware in late 2013 of some pressure on exactly the same topic from the nhbc

01:39:59 i know that there were some discussions with nhbc i don't know how aware i was of as a detail of those discussions

01:40:07 did you know that there was some pressure being exerted by the nhbc on exactly the same lines as that being imposed by wintec i i don't know that it was on

01:40:18 wintec i i don't know that it was on exactly the same lines but i i was aware that there was discussion with the nhbc yes and were you aware that the nhbc had raised concerns about the use of k-15 on buildings over 18 meters well i was

01:40:30 on buildings over 18 meters well i was aware of that from the exchange with wintec they pointed it out

01:40:36 out now you've explained in your witness statement that following the meeting and the exchanges with wintec in late 2013 kingspan decided to embark on a program of testing to 8414 part two on systems incorporating k-15

01:40:48 incorporating k-15 sorry where is this um see i haven't got a reference for that but you explain in your statement that there was

01:40:55 there was this program of testing in 2014 can we look at a spreadsheet which has been produced for the inquiry by kingspan

01:41:05 kingspan if we go to kin three zeros two two three five seven

01:41:14 so what happened is the inquiry began asking questions of kingspan about exactly what k-15 product had been tested during each test to bs 8414

01:41:27 during each test to bs 8414 and this is the schedule dated the 31st of january 2020 that kingspan then provided have you seen this spreadsheet previously i've seen it previous to this hearing

01:41:39 i've seen it previous to this hearing i hadn't seen it

01:41:44 i don't think i'd seen this during my time at kingsman we can see that the columns along the top give us the test date the sponsor the details of the system tested

01:41:55 the details of the system tested etcetera and then in the sixth column the properties of the tested insulation product do you see that there yes and in the seventh column it also gives details of whether the

01:42:06 it also gives details of whether the tested insulation product was the same as k-15 being offered for sale by kingspan at the time yes and do you agree that that was an important

01:42:15 important um question whether what was being tested was the same as what was being sold

01:42:19 sold yes

01:42:23 and in your witness statement for the transcript this is paragraph 11.23 on page 51.

01:42:31 page 51. you say that you would have expected any reliance on an 8414 report to make clear if the product was materially different from that which was being sold is that right it sounds right which

01:42:43 is that right it sounds right which where was the sorry it's um paragraph 11.23

01:42:46 11.23 in your witness statement page 51 in the last two lines yes yes i would have expected any

01:42:58 yes yes i would have expected any reliance on an eight for one for two report to make clear if the product was materially different and you mean clearly different to that which was being sold yes yes

01:43:13 and would it be right that if a trial product was being tested to 8414 and therefore was being specifically manufactured for the purpose of testing all those within kingspan who were involved in the

01:43:24 within kingspan who were involved in the production of that sample and the testing itself would be aware that that was the case yes i would think so yeah yeah and you as technical director in terms of

01:43:35 you as technical director in terms of the very least budget planning would have been aware of the costs associated with such testing is that right

01:43:40 right i would have broadly the the budgets were planned um at the beginning of the year or before the beginning of the year yeah and uh some allocated for testing which would cover a number of tests yeah and where

01:43:51 cover a number of tests yeah and where you were where in 2014 that there was some budget allocated to producing trial samples of k-15 for the purposes of testing yes yeah now

01:44:04 yes yeah now in this spreadsheet um

01:44:08 we can if we go back to that spreadsheet sorry kin30s22357

01:44:17 if we go on to page three we see the first of the four 2014 tests 7th of january 2014. do you see that there yes and we can see that the system

01:44:29 yes and we can see that the system tested in the third column is eight millimeter trespa fr high pressure laminate do you see that there hpl and the properties of the insulation

01:44:40 and the properties of the insulation tested are said to be unknown do you see that there yes can you recall what the insulating product tested in that january 14 test was no i think it might have been

01:44:55 um i'm just trying to think i think this might have been a

01:45:00 well it would be speculation it could have been a blowing agent i know we were looking at solstice product at the time yes the solstice comes in i think in the next um in the next two tests but i can't

01:45:13 um in the next two tests but i can't recall what it was let's go to an internal presentation now

01:45:20 kin3021945 which appears to be an internal presentation prepared by mr meredith in may 2015

01:45:28 may 2015 called the facade insulation solution did you see that there and if we can go to page 17 there's a timeline of testing to date

01:45:39 17 there's a timeline of testing to date do you see that there yes and the january 14 test is the third one up from the bottom yep and can you see it says there um kingspan the thickness is 80 millimeters

01:45:53 kingspan the thickness is 80 millimeters and it says k15 25 micron unperforated on the formula facer do you see that yes does that um help with your recollection that that

01:46:04 um help with your recollection that that was um

01:46:05 was um carried out on standard k-15 foam as sold but with a non-standard unperforated foil facer

01:46:14 if if that was what it was then obviously it's correct i i can't we can't recall from the time what was tested

01:46:22 tested i know a number of things were tested yeah

01:46:25 yeah we can just look at some email correspondence from the time between you tony milicep mr davis and iva meredith this is at kin3021095

01:46:37 if we go to the end of the document at the end of the email chain at the bottom of page two is from mr meredith there on the 9th of january 2014

01:46:48 january 2014 1735.

01:46:52 do you see that there where he says if you look to the back page is that the one you mean yes if you look to the back page you'll see where the 15-minute reference comes from

01:47:03 15-minute reference comes from do you see that there yes and then

01:47:12 i think there's an is there a note at the bottom of this page that says the entire message is not included do you see that there but there seems to be some discussion going on about that january 2014 test it's just two days

01:47:25 january 2014 test it's just two days after that test right and and just above mr meredith's email and all we have of it is that you send an email saying that implies we

01:47:36 you send an email saying that implies we only just failed regards malcolm do you see that yes why did you say that well i if i see the subject of iva's email below he's got the subject 15 minutes so

01:47:49 he's got the subject 15 minutes so i assume he's drawing something to my attention well mine tony's gwins and lindsay's about the

01:47:57 the performance of the system at 15 minutes yeah and my comment there suggests um that having a

01:48:09 suggests um that having a look at the whatever he sent um it would have been in less than an hour um my conclusion was that

01:48:20 that it looks like um we only just failed to i

01:48:23 i i assume i was looking at the 600 degree um limit to whatever that i've forgotten the height now but yeah the height that's at it yeah mr meredith then responds to you on

01:48:35 yeah mr meredith then responds to you on the 13th of january if you look at the bottom of page one

01:48:42 and he says you can see in the first line he says from the external temperatures it does look very close do you see that there

01:48:50 there the temperatures in the cavity were a little higher but still close to the 15 minute window and then he says ideally we need to pass with a 10 window for assessment anything too close will be impede will

01:49:01 anything too close will be impede will impede the bre's ability to provide practical test assessments do you see that there and then what he does he he says at the bottom of that page it's

01:49:12 he says at the bottom of that page it's with the above in mind and after an extensive review of the test video and data

01:49:16 data we're looking to propose consider the following and what he does is give a detailed list of modifications which could be made to try and achieve a pass

01:49:27 pass do you see that there and there are six listed yes and one of the things he says there at five is adopt modified k-15 solstice referred discussions in

01:49:38 solstice referred discussions in meeting do you see that and then as soon as this is made if i can get samples for o2 index and calorimetry of any variants of the solstice board we should try and

01:49:49 of the solstice board we should try and get them twix over quickly to see if there's any difference in initial flammability calorific output do you see that there yes yes now can you help us as to what previous discussions he's referring to there about

01:50:00 there about k-15 solstice uh no it must have been one of the options looked at for improved performance in this test i assume

01:50:10 assume and what is k-15 solstice i think we we were looking at a blowing agent in those days and and the hope was that that would become the blowing agent i think for k-15 in the future

01:50:21 think for k-15 in the future yeah and that was called solstice it it was a new generation um blowing agent uh it was um i i can't remember exactly but uh hydro

01:50:33 i i can't remember exactly but uh hydro fluoro olefin i think so which meant it was unstable in the atmosphere and would break down quite quickly

01:50:38 quickly yeah but the advantage was it gave a um an improved lambda valley improved installation value and also i believe it was slightly less flammable as well

01:50:50 as well yeah so it had better environmental credentials in terms of its ozone depletion no they were no better um that the the hfcs and hcfcs were phased out because they

01:51:02 and hcfcs were phased out because they had ozone depletion potential yeah so anything introduced after that including ipc ipm uh pentanes didn't have any ozone depletion potential and it was a liquid blowing agent is

01:51:14 and it was a liquid blowing agent is that right yes these these were fluoridated hydrocarbons that uh were engineers so they didn't have an ozone depletion potential yeah and so

01:51:25 depletion potential yeah and so it's right isn't it that mr meredith was proposing that case kingspan used solstice blown k15 in the next test

01:51:32 next test to 8414 but first he wanted to test samples of that at xovo is that right that seems to be what he's discussing here and then if we move up the chain on page one you respond as follows

01:51:46 uh in the middle of that page so in that evening 2129 you say either agree with all

01:51:53 with all except move to solstice as rest are merely tweaks to the test suggest any recipient calls me back to discuss rather than email correspondence which will get too complicated regards

01:52:04 which will get too complicated regards malcolm do you see that there yes

01:52:09 and is it is it right that you did not agree with the move to solstice blown k-15

01:52:15 k-15 i think for this test i was keen to try and get something that was the same as the product that was on on the market which would have been the

01:52:26 on the market which would have been the um

01:52:26 um presumably the one that was tested and the move to solstice well there were a number of implications one it wouldn't have been the one product on the market and um which meant that we would have to

01:52:37 and um which meant that we would have to introduce a completely new product then yes salsas blown and it was very early days if i remember correctly with our investigations into solstice so

01:52:48 our investigations into solstice so i don't think i was certain that it would be viable you might test something that actually doesn't you can't commercially supply yeah

01:52:57 why did you want to call back rather than a discussion over email correspondence well i think it's obviously ivor's put a number of

01:53:06 number of um possibilities including solstice so it was it was well let's let's talk about what what is possible and what what isn't possible and the trouble is these

01:53:18 possible and the trouble is these email um chains go on and on forever and yeah if we move up the chain towards the top of page one there are two emails between mr miller chap and mr meredith into which

01:53:30 miller chap and mr meredith into which you're not copy just to be clear yeah and the first is from mr miller chapter ivan meredith and he says malcolm's response was cryptic let me know his thoughts over the solstice element

01:53:41 element and then at the top of the email chain mr meredith responds will do he's in meetings today also i edited your comments as i thought he would be concerned over us putting too much in black and white

01:53:52 much in black and white do you see that there yes

01:53:58 now were you concerned about putting too much in black and white on this issue i don't know what he was referring to in terms of the comments um

01:54:10 edit your comments i have no idea what those comments were and when we're not we can't see them so i don't know can i just show you a passage in mr meredith's oral evidence now

01:54:21 meredith's oral evidence now at day 76 page one two two picking up at line four

01:54:36 picking up at line four so um at line four i say okay and did you ever get a clearer picture as to why he didn't want to discuss this in email correspondence he says it will get too complicated

01:54:47 he says it will get too complicated there but did you ever become aware that there was another reason for and then he said malcolm was always very reserved about what we put in writing

01:54:54 writing i think i was told off a few times for maybe too illustrative in emails really and then i asked why was he more reserved about what you put in writing and then he says he'd been through he'd

01:55:06 and then he says he'd been through he'd been through a large legal case with rockwool i think yes and you know he knew how these things could potentially be taken out of context and come back to bite you basically

01:55:16 basically and then the question was that when there was an action by kingspan against rockwell in relation to how it represented its products yeah yeah yeah that was the case yeah he'd been through that

01:55:27 he'd been through that yeah and he was what worried about committing things to email and then he says i think that might be what he's referring to here yeah do you see that there yes

01:55:42 and then if we just go over the page to the next page

01:55:51 um if we go above this i ask him about the tony miller chap and then i say so does that go back to and then he says that verifies what i

01:56:02 and then he says that verifies what i was saying before yeah yes that you were aware that mark and rochefort did didn't like you putting too much in writing about this and then we've got witness nods because he was nervous about this

01:56:13 he was nervous about this about if this ever came out yes potentially yes yes i agree do you see that there yes now is that right that you'd been through the experience of being involved

01:56:24 through the experience of being involved in

01:56:25 in the case uh a civil case kingston against

01:56:28 against rockwool i'd been in that and i've been in a case in um in the states as well um and had that made you nervous about committing um

01:56:39 committing um matters in writing i think i think what he says there is correct i was a bit nervous about what you put down in in emails but um it was on this particular occasion i

01:56:50 it was on this particular occasion i wasn't sure what they could have said that would have been um would have given me problems it was more a question of uh let's get to um the bottom of this

01:57:01 uh let's get to um the bottom of this particular issue that we're talking about which was the next the testing regime was one of the reasons you were nervous because that email chain was illustrating that k15 had not yet passed an 8414 part

01:57:14 that k15 had not yet passed an 8414 part 2 test and you were looking at research and development products to try and pass

01:57:21 i was looking at research and development products to try and pass that that's that's correct that's one of the things we were doing was definitely that um but that wasn't wouldn't have been why i was

01:57:32 why i was nervous about it on that particular occasion though if we can go back to kingspan spreadsheet now at kin3022357 and i want to look at the next test to

01:57:43 and i want to look at the next test to 8.14 part 2. this is in the middle of page 3. this is on the 19th of march 2014.

01:57:51 and it would appear that this test was um not classified to br135 do you remember that vaguely yes

01:58:04 and in this instance kingspan have confirmed

01:58:08 confirmed we're in that column the six column along properties of the tested insulation product that this test was not carried out on the k-15 which was being sold but on a trial product do you see that yes and the properties

01:58:21 do you see that yes and the properties of that tested insulation are listed as thickness 80 millimeters foil unperforated 50 micron or 100 micron foil do you see that there yes whereas the standard k15 had a 25 micron foil

01:58:34 the standard k15 had a 25 micron foil face it didn't correct yes and it also says core r33 r330 uf1 calcium carbonate and polyol blend

01:58:45 blend added alternative blowing agent do you see that there yes and was that the solstice alternative blowing agent i assume it was like that's what was being looked at at the times i was

01:58:56 being looked at at the times i was saying it was a blend of sources of some sort

01:59:01 yeah and presumably the fact that the k-15 foam used in that test was made using a different blowing agent was not a surprise to you given the correspondence you'd had with mr

01:59:13 correspondence you'd had with mr meredith

01:59:14 meredith about that very correct in fact the fact that they were looking at that i mean it was a it was a logical thing to do to look at different formulations that might give you a different result in in a system test this test is not

01:59:27 in a system test this test is not mentioned in your witness statement can you help us as to why that why that is i

01:59:34 um was i even

01:59:38 i don't know why it isn't mentioned but i don't know that i was particularly aware of this i know i knew that there had been some tests

01:59:49 had been some tests did i mention the january one as well i can't remember we'll check we'll check that i mean i'm writing his witness statement five years after i've left the company so yeah i'm relying on looking through a

02:00:00 so yeah i'm relying on looking through a load of old documents let's look at some correspondence after the test kin30s21907

02:00:11 and if we can scroll to the email at the bottom of the chain second email on page three we can see on the 25th of march stephen howard of the bre is informing mr

02:00:22 howard of the bre is informing mr meredith in respect of the test and he says that um in the first line i discussed the test with phil and the current status is that you do not have a clear past do you see that there

02:00:33 clear past do you see that there yes and then on the same day um mr meredith

02:00:37 meredith forwards that message to you tony milichap and a number of others that's the bottom of page two top of page three

02:00:47 right right at the bottom there yep

02:00:53 and then um going up then to mr meredith's email at the top of page two on the 31st of march 2013 at 13 23 he says this he says initial feedback

02:01:04 23 he says this he says initial feedback from the bre is that this test did not meet the requirements of br135 third edition this is my name is the end of this as we'll be challenging this opinion and doing everything possible to get something usable out of the testing

02:01:16 usable out of the testing whether this be an assessment for a different cladding or a shorter build do you see that there yes yeah this the test

02:01:23 test says in the next paragraph is being dismantled this week so hopefully we can demonstrate very little flame spread on the k-15 and this will support the counter argument that we are preparing

02:01:34 counter argument that we are preparing yes and he says as as mentioned we've got a meeting with tennos arab ifc trespa plan to analyze what we've learned so far in the next paragraph and then he says this i spoke to malcolm on friday about

02:01:45 this i spoke to malcolm on friday about this and he advised we should proceed with the non-combustible terracotta cladding

02:01:50 cladding following this news from the bre are we all still in agreement in respect of this do you see that there yes and do you remember speaking to him about saying well let's do the terracotta cladding next i

02:02:01 do the terracotta cladding next i don't remember speaking to him but on the other hand this is quite a credible you know it's incredible statement yes it would have been it would have been the way i was thinking in other words if

02:02:13 the way i was thinking in other words if if the trespa was a narrow failure yeah um then the logical thing was to

02:02:19 was to look at the um the terracotta the terracotta yeah which is what we see you end up doing and then in july in the third test in 2014 which we'll come to that's the terracotta test

02:02:30 come to that's the terracotta test and then he says i shall know by the end of the week when i will need the insulation for the next test by however the question remains about the insulation we choose to use is it possible to share the calorimeter

02:02:41 is it possible to share the calorimeter results of the solstice versus standard versus phosphoric that we performed at ftt last week do you see that there yeah does this support our views on the flammability calorific content of the

02:02:52 flammability calorific content of the different

02:02:53 different phenolic foams this would be good to look at alongside the video do you see that there yes

02:03:02 and at this point do you agree that you are one of the people who are directing the the testing strategy

02:03:09 strategy you're discussing with mr meredith what you should test next having had this fail yeah i think at this stage we're all we're all looking at uh

02:03:20 at uh what what we should be testing and did you understand the basis on which the result of this test was going to be challenged i assume i don't understand i i

02:03:34 i assume i don't understand i i cannot now recall what the detail was but i assume from the earlier comments that i

02:03:39 that i had made this was the one that that narrowly failed so i don't i don't know um uh exactly what was going to be challenged and did you know what he

02:03:50 challenged and did you know what he meant by doing everything possible to get something usable out of the test that's the second line first paragraph uh yes i don't know

02:04:01 uh yes i don't know what exactly he meant from that now

02:04:04 are you aware that the test data from this test was used despite the fact that the tested system wasn't classified to br 135 it was used in a number of desktop assessments

02:04:15 assessments for systems incorporating k15 were you aware of that i don't think i was aware of that no

02:04:22 presumably uh it wasn't claimed that it it passed the br135 was it well there was a dispute between kingspan and the bre

02:04:34 about whether it had passed and a complaint was lodged about it um if we go up the chain a little further up page on page one at the bottom half of the page there's an email

02:04:46 bottom half of the page there's an email from gwyn davis sent on the 31st of march 2014 at 13 1346 he starts off saying surely we risk making fools of ourselves trying to quarrel with them

02:04:57 quarrel with them based on an earlier edition of the br135 i feel we need to understand why they are terminate terming this or fail and how they've come to this decision and then discuss internally the counter

02:05:08 and then discuss internally the counter to this and meet with phil and stephen do you remember that what kings fan were trying to say is well because the old br135 standard didn't make it clear that the full 60 minute test duration was

02:05:19 the full 60 minute test duration was relevant to the the past fail that somehow you could go back to that old standard

02:05:26 standard i think that now you mention it i think that that does sound familiar yes yeah and then at the top of this chain tony miller chap says this same day 1401 he says oh let's not

02:05:40 same day 1401 he says oh let's not forget

02:05:41 forget we are carefully pushing for bre for the result typically this is not issued without the full report after four to five weeks in the short term we are just trying to understand our options whilst waiting

02:05:52 understand our options whilst waiting for the full data and trying to sow some seeds to influence that result what did you understand him to mean by that so some seeds to influence that result

02:06:02 result sorry i've just missed that sorry it was said

02:06:05 said oh yes in the first paragraph second line yeah first paragraph and into the third line

02:06:13 do you remember being aware of him saying that

02:06:18 i assume he it's it's one of the bits of information he wants to use to the bre in trying to convince them that that it would be appropriate to

02:06:29 that that it would be appropriate to issue a br135 on it yeah he then goes on in that same paragraph

02:06:34 paragraph in the last sentence to say this in the event we do not get what we aim for stronger tactics will be employed do you see that there

02:06:45 see that there yes what did you understand him to mean by that stronger tactics will be employed well i think he goes on to say i will current concurrently employ our solicitor to ensure they're fully briefed to support a challenge or defend any

02:06:57 to support a challenge or defend any against any ongoing contracts so that those are the stronger taxes i assume that's what he means yeah to get to get lawyers involved and defend yes

02:07:08 defend yes i see did you consider that to be an acceptable response to the bre at the time i assume that either

02:07:19 assume that either and tony felt aggrieved that they had performed

02:07:22 performed a test which on the older version of the br 135 would have passed uh and that because the br 135 had been

02:07:33 and that because the br 135 had been reissued uh it now failed so they felt aggrieved at that and they were looking at ways at which they could be challenged like it's understandable why they would be doing it

02:07:44 be doing it yeah did you ever object to that at the time

02:07:47 time i didn't no

02:07:51 was there any discussion in early 2014 and following these tests in january and march about the risk to public safety in promoting k-15 for use over 18 meters

02:08:02 in promoting k-15 for use over 18 meters were you ever involved in such discussions no not not with public safety again at this point my assumption is still at the labc

02:08:12 the labc and bba certification is can we go now to kin403862 this is an email from you to mr miller chap

02:08:31 it's from it's from you to peter wilson mr meredith mr miller chap do you see that there on the 28th of april yes

02:08:44 yes i think i'm framing a letter to send to

02:08:48 to wintec because we'd said we'd be doing something in six months and it was to say well look we basically we have done something i don't think it's claiming that yes well let's look at what you say so

02:09:00 yes well let's look at what you say so you say

02:09:01 you say um dear paul so this this appears to be a draft email back to win tech as you've said

02:09:06 said it's been a while since we communicated and i thought i should give you a quick update

02:09:10 update further to our meeting last october we have been conducting some further testing with the bre on bs 8414 part 2 using call firm k-15 as you're probably aware tests take

02:09:21 aware tests take quite a long time to set up and complete with the bre partly because they appear to be quite busy with large-scale fire testing at the moment and then you say this the test we recently conducted incorporating a

02:09:32 recently conducted incorporating a trespa 18 millimeter cladding system met the criteria for approval under br135 and xb particularly with respect to the b2 requirement where the level 2

02:09:43 requirement where the level 2 thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees within 15 minutes of the start time and the test was run to completion we're currently in discussion with the bre and have had further testing planned

02:09:54 bre and have had further testing planned now that must be a reference to the test carried out on the 19th of march 2014. is that right i think it must be yes it can't be the january 14 test because that was an eight

02:10:05 14 test because that was an eight millimeter trespa panel i don't i don't think it is um now you knew by the 28th of april 2014 didn't you that the bre had confirmed

02:10:16 didn't you that the bre had confirmed there was no clear pass that's right isn't it

02:10:19 isn't it i don't know that i'd no i don't know that i didn't know that actually well you knew that from the email chain we've just looked at from the 31st of march 2014 where stephen howard told kingspan they do not have a clear

02:10:30 told kingspan they do not have a clear past do you remember that was forwarded to you

02:10:32 to you yes i know i i understand that but i also understood that tony was challenging that so that was the situation as far as i was concerned and

02:10:44 concerned and okay we could argue with the reasons he's challenging it he's using an old br135 um

02:10:51 br135 um but it seemed to me he did have some justification for challenging it and i think

02:10:55 think what i was doing here was um updating wintec

02:11:00 wintec really saying look we're not doing nothing we're still working on it uh and and this is this is a situation and i do say we're currently in discussion bre and have further testing planned and

02:11:11 bre and have further testing planned and in

02:11:11 in active construction that's also correct yes but

02:11:14 yes but you said you knew that it was being challenged and in those circumstances how did you come to write the words at the beginning of that second paragraph the cladding system met the criteria for approval

02:11:26 system met the criteria for approval under br135 you knew that that wasn't the position the bre had taken didn't you obviously that wording comes from someone suggested that wording to me but it would have been based on the earlier

02:11:38 it would have been based on the earlier br 135

02:11:40 br 135 um standard i i assume um incidentally this is just a draft email

02:11:47 email and i i don't even know it was ever sent was it

02:11:50 was it well that may be the case but i just want to ask you when you drafted this why you put in the words met the criteria for approval under br135 when

02:12:01 criteria for approval under br135 when you knew that there was a dispute going on and that the bre's position was that it was a fail well i think that was our position that it had met the criteria um as you can see tony was even

02:12:14 criteria um as you can see tony was even considering um a legal challenge on it so that was our position that it had met the criteria so why didn't you say that to to wintec why didn't you say we've just done a test

02:12:25 done a test it was close we're challenging the results the bre don't think it's a pass but

02:12:30 but we're challenging that why not say that that was the accurate position wasn't it i think that that could have done it wasn't i was running this past a number of people

02:12:40 of people and asking for advice on how it would be worded

02:12:43 worded i see and you can't help us as to whether this email was actually sent i i don't know if it was ever seen okay

02:12:51 moving on then to the july 2014 test um if we can go back to that spreadsheet

02:13:01 three five kin3022357 in the last row on page

02:13:05 page three

02:13:07 three [Music]

02:13:11 we can see it tells us 7th of july 2014 kingspan insulation limited and then we can see it was a terracotta tile you see under system tested

02:13:22 you see under system tested yes third column and we can see it was a pass this time do you see that there yes and then we can see in the six column properties of the tested insulation product

02:13:32 product it says trial product thickness 80 millimeters foil perforated and unperforated 50 micron

02:13:44 unperforated 50 micron yes and then if we go over the page 50 micron foil and then the core we've got the same description of the core as with the march test including alternative blowing agent do

02:13:57 including alternative blowing agent do you see that there yes and would that have been again the solstice blown blowing agent i i believe it was a solstice blind yeah yeah i know there was some dispute over whether it was a 50 micron or 25 micron

02:14:09 whether it was a 50 micron or 25 micron because i think gwyn thought it was a 25 micron and and he was the one supplying the sample but

02:14:18 that one i don't know that um did you ever get to the bottom of that no i don't think that they got to bottom up but presumably by the time this um table was produced uh kingspan was convinced that it was a 50 micron

02:14:30 convinced that it was a 50 micron i assume because they put that in yes that's back if we go back um to the bottom of the table that we were just reading from they've and it says perforated and unperforated

02:14:41 unperforated yes what was your understanding about whether or not it was a perforated or unperforated or indeed whether on one side it was perforated on the other it was not well i think i can't i

02:14:53 well i think i can't i don't know i never saw the samples but um at some stage we were producing uh a k-15 product that was perforated on one side and unperforated on the other side

02:15:03 side so i do know that had been done in the past

02:15:06 past yeah but again this was a trial product and i think i think you tell us that in your witness statement if we look at paragraph 11.23 of your statement on page 50

02:15:16 page 50 yep yes

02:15:21 11.23

02:15:26 you say um you became aware of some discussion and you say the in the third line down on the right hand side i had been under the impression that the successful part two tests had been conducted on a

02:15:39 part two tests had been conducted on a development k15 product using a 50 micron phaser yes that's correct so it's a development trial product yes yes and it wasn't the product that was being sold therefore

02:15:50 being sold therefore no

02:16:01 if we then go to some emails um

02:16:08 in november 2014. if we could go to kin 3021904 and look at the top of page one

02:16:23 i think that's where we're seeing where you've got that and your in your statement do you see that there either i was also strongly under the impression that the latest successful part 2 test used 50 micron phaser do you see that

02:16:35 used 50 micron phaser do you see that there yes you discussed this face to face

02:16:38 face with gwyn in the office and we also discuss at the next fire focus group meeting

02:16:42 meeting but limit email corres conversation do you see that there why did you say that to mr meredith in this email but limit email correspondence well if

02:16:54 but limit email correspondence well if you look at the previous the previous couple of pages i think it is you've got iva saying it was 50ml me chipping in i thought was 50 mil adrian saying he thought it was 50 mil and gwyn store that it was 25 mil

02:17:06 50 mil and gwyn store that it was 25 mil and it seemed to me that that was not resolvable on um an email ping pong system so it was better that either spoke directly to gwyn and and

02:17:17 either spoke directly to gwyn and and that's why i'm saying face to face and you know we don't want any more of this i see yes

02:17:24 i see yes going on and and i just want to move now to my final topic which is about king spans dealing with the nhbc which is a short topic

02:17:35 is a short topic um you deal with the subject of the nhbc in response to the inquiry's questions in section 10 of your witness statement which starts on page 42. if we could go to paragraph 10.2

02:17:47 if we could go to paragraph 10.2 on page 42.

02:17:54 you say at the top there as far as i can recall kingspan regarded the nhbc as playing a critical role in the sale of certain

02:18:01 certain insulation products to construction areas

02:18:04 areas it was seen as critical to ensure that the nhbc was content with kingspan's products in order to maximize sale of those products into construction areas in which nxbc played a role do you see that there

02:18:15 played a role do you see that there yes did that include k-15 i assume it would include k-15 yes and you go on to say later in your statement that your recollection is that you weren't involved in any meetings with the nhbc is that right

02:18:28 any meetings with the nhbc is that right that's my recollection yeah

02:18:31 and you've also said uh over on page 43 of your statement paragraph 10.4 that you were not involved in any internal meetings about the nhbc and the use of k-15 is that right

02:18:45 use of k-15 is that right as far as i recruit i was not involved in any meetings relating to k-15 and ambus and the hbc though i did receive email correspondence from my america regarding

02:18:56 correspondence from my america regarding a meeting

02:18:56 a meeting he held with the nhbc in august 2014. yeah

02:19:01 yeah if we can just look at an email from august 2014 which i think is what you're referring to there kin3020736

02:19:17 this is an email from mr meredith 21st of august 2014. we can see the subject is comment required by monday 5pm please k15 update do you see that there

02:19:30 please k15 update do you see that there in the subject oh yes it's the heading isn't it and you're one of the recipients of this email yes and then and he says um in the first paragraph as

02:19:41 and he says um in the first paragraph as the key stakeholders for the current cool them k15 fire certification issues i've taken five to update you all on the current situation since our last meeting do you see that there yes and so

02:19:54 yes and so is that right did you regard yourself at the time as one of the key stakeholders for the current call firm k-15 fire certification issues uh yes i would have been and i'm just

02:20:06 uh yes i would have been and i'm just looking at the list there's probably everyone there might have been a few others as well but

02:20:12 under that heading that first heading nhbc

02:20:15 nhbc bca do you see that there at point one of his emails he writes this a meeting has been held with the nhbc who are still pushing for someone to provide a job specific test data yeah to provide

02:20:28 specific test data yeah to provide job-specific test data they are still sanctioning the use of k-15 as long as they get a bespoke letter off kingspan which technical projects are turning around in 48 hours on

02:20:40 turning around in 48 hours on receipt of the drawings and confirmation of the fire barrier dimensions [Applause] and then he says they have also given us an extra three months to get some further assessments on the test data to meet their needs

02:20:52 meet their needs and then he says we have also requested two week notification if they decide to change their stance do you see that there

02:20:59 there yes did you authorize those bespoke letters which were being turned around in 48 hours at that time no i i wouldn't have seen them many i would i wouldn't be aware of

02:21:10 them many i would i wouldn't be aware of the detail in those at all who was signing off on those as far as you understood it um

02:21:30 as long as they get a bespoke letter of kill which technical projects are turning around let's see the drawings or if it says bespoke letter it must be someone in the technical in

02:21:41 it must be someone in the technical in our technical department is providing it with them

02:21:44 with them um so it presumably would have been tony milicep or either yeah did you ever check any of those letters yourself i don't think so no right

02:21:55 i don't think so no right and then if we can look at point six at the bottom of page two of this email it's a long email

02:22:05 he writes this he says we've issued a couple of standard letters to the larger contractors praters lakesmere etcetera and confirming our good news confirming pending reports and a more general letter confirming

02:22:17 and a more general letter confirming test success these are being used by technical and sales for job-specific queries which we are targeting handling within 48 hours of receipt tony malcolm i've not written to stuart

02:22:29 tony malcolm i've not written to stuart taylor at wintec has this been done do you see that there i do yeah do you know why this was being done issuing standard letters to the larger construct

02:22:39 construct contractors confirming good news and a more general letter about test success

02:22:45 success do you know why that was being done i don't know but i know there was quite a lot of discussion at the time about um

02:22:53 about um introducing the solstice blowing agent as a as a new product uh so i'm assuming this is about the uh the new version

02:23:05 uh the new version of the product which would have solstice blowing agent involved yes you and mr meredith knew at the time that the july 2014 test had been carried out on a trial product

02:23:16 trial product but that was not on the k15 which was being sold by kingspan and actually used on projects was it not at this point no no but i think that was tested in april

02:23:29 no but i think that was tested in april 2015 wasn't it

02:23:32 but you were the technical director at this at this time and you can see that reliance is being placed on that test success which was on a trial product can you explain how

02:23:44 trial product can you explain how you were comfortable with that i think that

02:23:48 that i assumed maybe wrongly that they're talking about a new product would be

02:23:55 will be produced based on this on this blowing agent configuration yes but you can see that they're sending letters including

02:24:06 they're sending letters including technical and sales job-specific query letters which they're handling within 48 hours of receipt so they're turning around these letters recommending k15 within 48 hours

02:24:18 recommending k15 within 48 hours how were you comfortable with that when you knew that the only success you'd had at that time was on a trial product and not the k-15 you were selling well again i i think i would have been

02:24:30 well again i i think i would have been relying on the fact that the labc certification was was covering us by this time sorry by this time the lab had you finished what you wanted to say um

02:24:43 but in this particular case um

02:24:49 it doesn't say what these letters are going to contain in them so i'm not quite sure what they are was speculating when i said it might be about the solstice product i don't know what it what these letters were about

02:25:02 were about sorry i shouldn't have interrupted you but by this time the labc certificate saying that k-15 was a limited combustibility product was long expired so you couldn't be relying on that could you not if it was expired i couldn't be

02:25:15 you not if it was expired i couldn't be no

02:25:15 no no so are you saying that you simply weren't aware that k15 was being recommended on projects at that time and that

02:25:28 on projects at that time and that somehow what was being said here is that you might be recommending a future solstice blown product i that that could be what was implied by that um

02:25:39 that um by that paragraph but i don't know did you ever check i don't think i did know

02:25:45 know why not you're the technical director why do you not check that you're not selling k15 on the basis of test data that's irrelevant because it's based on

02:25:57 that's irrelevant because it's based on a trial product i didn't and

02:26:04 maybe that was a mistake but i would have looked at the whole i think i would have been looking at this email rather long email from um iva and i would have been

02:26:15 um iva and i would have been highlighting to myself things that were of interest i would have seen the comment at the bottom tony michael i've not written to stewart tater at wintec as it's been done and i probably would

02:26:26 as it's been done and i probably would have concentrated on that as an action a potential action for me

02:26:33 would you accept that this was deliberate and planned reliance by kingspan

02:26:37 kingspan on a test of a trial product to support the use of a completely different product

02:26:43 product i don't think that was the intention no because the the standard product was tested the following april and and it passed on the terracotta cladding system right are you prepared to accept that

02:26:56 right are you prepared to accept that during the whole of your time as technical director of the company kingspan had no test evidence which related to the k-15 product actually being sold to market which could support the use of that

02:27:07 which could support the use of that product on buildings over 18 meters in height

02:27:11 height i not prepared to accept it that that was done knowingly um i think if you look back and you say well the

02:27:22 well the old technology was completely different to the new technology and that was the original test that was based on you could make an argument for that but that wasn't it wasn't unknowingly and the

02:27:33 it wasn't unknowingly and the certification i took in good faith i assumed that was that was correct

02:27:42 mr chairman i've come to the end of my questions i'm sorry i'm slightly over 4 30. um

02:27:49 4 30. um if we could have the customary break we may have to at that point um just reserve our position on recalling this witness while we checked the notes um

02:28:00 while we checked the notes um that he referred to but i think we have to see where we get to with that i don't think that should stop us releasing this witness today we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves let's deal with any questions first

02:28:11 let's deal with any questions first roger when we get to this point councils uh think she's finished asking all the questions but we always have a short break both to allow her to check and to allow those

02:28:22 allow her to check and to allow those who aren't present in the room but are following these earrings to suggest other questions that perhaps

02:28:28 perhaps put to you so we're going to break now until quarter to five okay and then we'll see whether there are any more questions that we need to ask you is that right yes and

02:28:39 we need to ask you is that right yes and uh please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out thank you

02:28:50 right of course to fight please

02:42:11 would you ask dr rocha to come back in

02:42:24 please

02:42:30 all right dr roshan we'll see if there any more questions for you it's great question uh yeah it's just a couple um

02:42:38 couple um the metsec tests that were done back in 2008

02:42:41 2008 that we were discussing with k15 the failures

02:42:45 failures um when we were discussing what conclusions you formed about the performance of k-15 was it a factor in your thinking at the time

02:42:54 time that there'd also been a metsec test with rockwool which had failed to bs 8414 i i think it was a factor

02:43:05 i i think it was a factor that um it would have been one of one of several things can you explain how that was relevant how you thought that was a factor i think what what it would have shown was that the um

02:43:18 was that the um the system even with a a non-uh combustible insulin also failed were you ever aware that there was also

02:43:30 were you ever aware that there was also a pass with a metsec rockwool system in uh no i i wasn't but um

02:43:41 i wouldn't necessarily have been aware of that were you aware that mr meredith was present at the metsec um rock will fail in 2008 one of those

02:43:54 rock will fail in 2008 one of those tests

02:43:56 tests i didn't know that he was necessarily present but i know either spent quite a lot of time down at garson so it's possible we've gone through quite a lot in the

02:44:07 we've gone through quite a lot in the last day well today dr watchford um if you had your time again what would you do differently i would probably ask more questions

02:44:18 questions um that would be my um biggest regret about it i think

02:44:26 yes right thank you mr chairman there's just the

02:44:30 just the remaining matter of the recent disclosure um just to be clear that um we've checked and it would appear that together with a lot of other information we've had from kingspan

02:44:42 we've had from kingspan very late we have been inundated with late disclosure from kingspan on the 17th of november those notes were provided although it wasn't clearly marked that these were dr rochford's notes

02:44:53 notes um we're obviously in your hands as to what you do i think some teams would like him not to be released and that's team two's position of the bsrs until they've had a chance to consider that

02:45:04 consider that um have you or those who sit behind you had a chance to look at those notes we've had a brief look and we can't say anything of any we can't see anything terribly significant at the moment in terms of

02:45:15 significant at the moment in terms of changing

02:45:16 changing um the evidence war in terms of questions we'd want to put but what we could do is let dr rochford go today

02:45:23 today and then if there are further questions to put to him once everybody's seen those documents we can then if necessary recall him or put those further questions to him in another way all right thank you very much well dr

02:45:36 all right thank you very much well dr rocha

02:45:37 rocha those are all the questions we have for you and i think the first thing for me to say is

02:45:40 to say is thank you very much for coming to give your evidence um it's been a long day for you i'm sorry it's taken long we thought but we're very grateful and it's been very helpful to hear from you now about your diary yes you've got it

02:45:52 now about your diary yes you've got it somewhere safe at home i take it i have although it has been it has been scanned all the relevant well yes but it's nice to know where the original oh you know it's going to ask you to look after it carefully now what we're going to do about that as you've

02:46:04 we're going to do about that as you've heard it has been disclosed to us um council have had a look at it they are satisfied that it does not contain anything

02:46:11 anything that will assist us or will give rise to any further questions but as you know there are other people who are interested in this inquiry and they've not yet had a chance to look at it yes so

02:46:23 at it yes so what i'm going to say is that although i'm going to release you now which means you're

02:46:27 you're you obviously not just you go home but you're free to talk about uh the inquiry if you if you want to um i would ask you please not to talk to people about your

02:46:39 people about your contents of your diary right and i think uh if it transpires that there are further questions arising out of the diary when we've had a better chance to look at it or if other people suggest questions

02:46:51 or if other people suggest questions that ought to be asked when they've had a chance to look at it it might be necessary to ask you to come back and deal with those questions i understand that yes we'll let you know in good time if that turns out to be the case i should say there's quite a bit of

02:47:02 i should say there's quite a bit of personal information in those diaries but we shall be troubling you with that hopefully not but uh for the time being uh thank you very much for coming and you're free to go thank you thank you very much

02:47:23 good well that must be the end for today it is

02:47:26 it is and we'll have another witness tomorrow we have another kings fan witness tomorrow uh mr tony militapp right thank you so we'll rise now and we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning

02:47:37 tomorrow morning thank you very much