Grenfell firm to challenge Kensington and Chelsea ban in court

Insulation firm Siderise is challenging a decision by Kensington and Chelsea council to ban it from working in the borough because of its involvement with the Grenfell Tower refurbishment.

Siderise Insulation Ltd manufactured some of the cavity barriers used on Grenfell Tower’s refurbishment in 2015-16.

It was banned from working for the council at the end of last year after several other firms who worked on the refurbishment, including Rydon and Kingspan, were prohibited in 2021. The fire claimed 72 lives when it caught fire in June 2017.

But Siderise is challenging the decision, made two weeks before Christmas, with a judicial review.

It said: “As a market leader in external passive fire protection, Siderise has led the industry in adopting new standards to help ensure that such tragedies do not recur. It is clear from the Grenfell Inquiry Reports that Siderise does not meet Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s [RBKC] criteria for excluding companies.

“RBKC decided to take measures against companies whose incompetence, dishonesty or misleading behaviour had contributed to the Grenfell Tower fire or its spread, or which were not candid before the Grenfell Inquiry.

“While Siderise products were used in the Grenfell refurbishment, the Grenfell Inquiry Report is clear that neither Siderise nor its products contributed to the tragic fire or its spread, and there is no suggestion that Siderise was not candid before the Inquiry, and therefore this exclusion is unwarranted.”

It added: “The RBKC decision is therefore without foundation or justification. Siderise is acting to protect its reputation as a British manufacturer which supplies its products globally.

“The RBKC decision is therefore without foundation or justification. Siderise is acting to protect its reputation as a British manufacturer which supplies its products globally.”

>> See also: Grenfell Inquiry Phase 2 report: all our coverage in one place

The final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, published last year, said: “Although there is no evidence to suggest that, unlike Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex, Siderise set out in its marketing literature deliberately to mislead, it was suggested that its datasheet was in fact misleading because it suggested that its cavity barriers were effective when used in rainscreen cladding systems of all kinds, when the tests it had carried out did not support that claim.

“We think that the datasheet should have described more fully the nature of the tests it had carried out. The unqualified statement that the horizontal cavity barrier ‘fully closes the ventilated air gap in the event of a fire’ tended to suggest that it would do so regardless of the nature of the rainscreen panel against which it was to form a seal. On the face of it, that was misleading, because no test had been carried out in conjunction with any recognised form of rainscreen panel.

“However, it is unlikely that any competent designer reading the datasheet would have been misled about the suitability of the product for particular rainscreen applications.”

Siderise added: “Given there is no suggestion in the Grenfell Inquiry Reports of dishonesty on the part of Siderise or any deficiencies in its products, the company should therefore not have been included in the RBKC decision.”

Siderise said that criticism of its marketing literature was not that it stated something incorrectly but that it did not state further information that would have been helpful.

In a statement, the council said it stood by its decision but declined to comment further.

Meanwhile, Kingspan has given an updated response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry in its latest annual results which were published at the end of last week.

It said: “While the Group’s subsidiary had no role in the design of the cladding system on Grenfell Tower, the Group’s K15 product (constituting approximately 5% of the insulation on the tower) was misused without the Group’s knowledge in an unsafe and non-compliant cladding system on the exterior of the building.

“Although not found by the Inquiry to be causative of the tragedy, the Group has acknowledged certain historical failings that occurred in part of the business of the relevant subsidiary, which the Group has since comprehensively addressed. There can be no assurance that the findings of the Inquiry, negative press or industry sentiment following the Inquiry, will not negatively impact the Group or lead to the Group being the subject of additional investigations, litigation, regulatory responses or other legal proceedings.”

It added: “The Group has not recognised a provision for any liabilities that may arise on the basis that a present obligation does not exist. Any potential liabilities cannot be measured with sufficient reliability, and it would not be practicable to do so.”

Kingspan said turnover last year was up 6% to €8.4bn (£7bn) with pre-tax profit up 5% to €832m (£689m).