Combustible cladding does not inherently pose risks when used responsibly in building design, but can lead to significant material hazards if handled carelessly by professionals, a court was told.
The Federal Court is currently hearing a case against German manufacturer 3A Composites and its Australian distributor, Halifax Vogel Group (HVG), concerning cladding linked to several major fires worldwide. Incidents include the tragic Grenfell Tower blaze in London in July 2017, which resulted in 72 deaths, and the non-fatal Lacrosse fire in Melbourne in November 2014.
The lawsuit centres on 3A’s Alucobond PE and Plus products, which the court heard contains a combustible polyethylene core encased in aluminium sheeting.
It comes in a panel form, which can be used as a facade finish for exterior walls or on roof edges and awnings.
Barrister Matthew Darke SC, representing 3A Composites, highlighted that Australian law mandates qualified professionals, including architects, fire-safety engineers, and building certifiers, to assess the fire safety compliance of newly constructed buildings.
The court has previously been informed that this cladding can ooze, melt, and deform, potentially aiding the rapid spread of fire within a building.
However, Darke argued that the class action incorrectly assigns blame to 3A and HVG for the shortcomings of professionals who allegedly did not act reasonably.
He said no one would assume 3A’s Alucobond PE or Plus cladding, could be used in any quantity or manner without increasing fire risk.
He further argued that Alucobond panels complied with all relevant laws and codes, and consultants’ and contractors’ decisions led to dangerous uses and increased fire risks.
According to documents filed with the Federal Court by Sydney-based Halifax Vogel Group, the cladding sheets were designed to be used and fitted onto buildings by qualified professionals in ways that met state and territory requirements as well as the National Construction Code.
The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue.
In March 2021, Victoria’s Court of Appeal found the architect, fire safety engineer, and building certifier of the Lacrosse Tower negligent in their design.
“We say that consumers do not regard goods as not being of acceptable quality because they can’t be used in the way that a negligent or careless qualified professional recommends or allows them to be used,” Darke said.
