In a closing speech that sought to deflect blame for the 72 deaths, the company also said that if others involved in the 2014-16 renovation had correctly read a safety certificate for its solid plastic panels that said they were flammable, they might have no one will have died and he claimed his client had faced “an agenda to convict them”. The inquest has already found that the June 14, 2017 fire that killed 72 people at the west London council complex was spread mainly by Arconic’s aluminum composite panels burning like petrol. Lawyers for the bereaved and survivors accused Arconic of bearing the greatest responsibility for the speed with which the fire developed and spread, of being “reckless in pushing dangerous products” and “deceptive in their sales tactics”. But Stephen Hockman KC, a lawyer for Arconic, accused other companies of blaming Arconic as “a very convenient way to avoid their own responsibility” and said it was “unfair” and “deeply disappointing” to claim Arconic had misled the market. Hockman also said it had been established by expert witnesses that “at least half of the thermal loading occurred as a result of the combustion of the contents of the apartment rather than the combustion of the cladding system components”. On Monday, lawyers for the victims challenged the organizations involved in the renovation to apologize and warned that otherwise it would be “injustice piled upon injustice”. Hawkman did not, but expressed “deep sympathy for all those directly affected” by the fire. Earlier on Tuesday, cladding contractor Harley Facades defended his role after lawyers for the bereaved concluded he knew the panels he was installing were highly flammable, was “grossly negligent” and his conduct was “woefully inadequate” with his subcontractor designer to fail. to check whether the panels met building regulations. Jonathan Laidlaw KC, appearing for Harley, admitted claims the companies were involved in a cartel “may be true”. He admitted there were “mistakes” and “omissions”. But he said “the overwhelmingly dominant factor in the catastrophic spread of the fire was the use of these materials.” Harley was “disappointed and indeed angry” at how manufacturers behaved and said the government failed to intervene to stop ACM when pre-fire tests showed it burned like “an inferno”. For Arconic, Hockman’s main defense against claims it failed to warn users about fire performance or made misleading statements was a certificate, obtained from the certification body British Board of Agrément, which “makes it clear that the product was flammable”. The manufacture and sale of his panels was “perfectly legal” at the time. Responding to criticism that when the cladding was bent into cassette shapes, such as at Grenfell Tower, it did not achieve a basic fire performance limit, he said Arconic supplied it as a panel and was shaped “by or on behalf of the purchaser”. Hockman said: “Primary responsibility for any alleged misuse of the product must rest with those actually responsible for the design and construction of the architectural work.” Arconic is a multi-billion dollar US-based multinational, but the subsidiary that supplied materials to Grenfell is based in France. Several key Arconic executives declined to be cross-examined during the investigation, citing an archaic French law known as the “statute of exclusion.” Archie Bland and Nimo Omer take you to the top stories and what they mean, free every weekday morning Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online advertising and content sponsored by external parties. For more information, see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. In 2015, Claude Wehrle, one of those who refused, sent an internal email warning that the panels he was selling were “dangerous for the facades and everything must be urgently transferred to fireproof”. Hockman said Wehrle had expressed views that were “overly cautious”. He also said the non-disclosure of the results of a 2005 test of cassette-style panels, as used at Grenfell, which burned 10 times faster than flat sheets, was a “non-issue” because there was a certificate recommending further tests of fire resistance of any full investment system. And he claimed that the potentially deadly poisonous carbon monoxide released by Arconic’s burning cladding panels was not as dangerous to human life as the hydrogen cyanide gas released by burning foam insulation made by other companies. Kingspan manufactured a small amount of flammable insulation used in the tower but has been accused by lawyers for the victims of being “reckless in pushing dangerous products”. The company used its final statement to insist there was no evidence from experts to suggest the fire would have been different if non-combustible insulation had been used. “A significant share of the responsibility for the Grenfell Tower tragedy lies with Arconic as the manufacturer of the ACM polyethylene material,” said Geraint Webb KC, a spokesman for Kingspan. “The responsibility also rests with those responsible for the design, construction and approval of the renovation.” Webb said the company “apologizes for … shortcomings in connection with the testing and certification of the K 15 prior to 2015.” But he said: “None of these deficiencies were a cause of the fire, nor was the nature or speed of the fire spreading in any way.” The investigation continues.
