Equans sues Arconic over cladding in north London council blocks

Key Points

• Equans has filed a £2.73 million claim in the High Court against French materials manufacturer Arconic.
• The claim concerns the supply of Reynobond 55 polyethylene cladding used in the refurbishment of three north London council high-rises between 2011 and 2012.
• The same material was used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment in west London, identified by the Grenfell Inquiry as the primary cause of the deadly fire in 2017.
• Equans alleges Arconic knowingly supplied “extremely dangerous” and “inherently defective” cladding.
• The claim is brought under section 149 of the Building Safety Act 2022.
• Evidence cited includes internal emails, test reports, and marketing literature revealed during the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
• Equans argues Arconic was aware of the severe fire risks of their aluminium composite material (ACM) panels but failed to disclose this.

What is the basis of Equans’ legal action against Arconic?

As reported by Christina Lago of Construction News, Equans has initiated legal proceedings in the High Court, seeking £2.73 million in damages from Arconic Architectural Products SAS. The claim relates to cladding materials supplied for the refurbishment of three council high-rise blocks in north London undertaken between 2011 and 2012. The materials include Reynobond 55 polyethylene (PE) aluminium composite cladding manufactured by Arconic, the identical product identified as a principal cause in the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy in west London on 14 June 2017, which claimed 72 lives.

Equans accuses Arconic of knowingly supplying this “extremely dangerous” and “inherently defective” cladding despite awareness of its fire risk, breaching their responsibilities under the Building Safety Act 2022. This legislation, introduced after Grenfell, enables claims concerning unsafe building materials, particularly under section 149 addressing supplier liability.

What evidence supports Equans’ allegations against Arconic?

Christina Lago details that Equans relies heavily on evidence disclosed during the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, including Arconic’s internal emails, test results, and marketing documents. These materials demonstrate that Arconic was aware of the serious fire risks posed by Reynobond 55 PE cladding prior to supplying it for the north London refurbishments.

The Grenfell Inquiry has already established that Reynobond 55 was the “primary cause” of the rapid fire spread on Grenfell Tower’s facade. Equans contends that internal documents show Arconic’s knowledge of the dangers but a failure to warn or prevent the cladding’s use on residential blocks.

Why is this case significant in the context of building safety and the Grenfell aftermath?

The claim brought by Equans illustrates ongoing accountability efforts following the Grenfell disaster. It reflects the increasing legal scrutiny on manufacturers and suppliers of ACM cladding, especially those implicated in supplying hazardous materials.

Equans’ case highlights the broader impact of the Building Safety Act 2022, which strengthens the ability to hold manufacturers responsible for defective and unsafe building products. It also signals the construction industry’s push to recover losses related to poor-quality materials linked to fire safety failures.

What refurbishment works involved the Reynobond 55 cladding in north London?

Between 2011 and 2012, Equans performed refurbishment works on three council high-rise blocks in north London. These projects included installing aluminium-insulated rainscreen systems with Arconic’s Reynobond 55 PE cladding.

This aluminium composite material, with a polyethylene core sandwiched between aluminium sheets, was widely used for such high-rise refurbishments before its combustibility and fire risk became widely known post-Grenfell.

What has been Arconic’s response to these allegations?

There has been no public comment from Arconic specifically on the claim filed by Equans as of now. However, past statements and inquiries reveal that Arconic has previously denied knowledge of the full extent of fire risks or contended that other contractors bear responsibility for how the material was used.

The Grenfell Inquiry heard arguments from Arconic’s legal representatives that responsibility for misuse lay primarily with construction firms and fire safety assessors, though internal evidence has challenged these claims.

What are the wider implications for the construction and cladding industry?

This legal action against Arconic forms part of a broader wave of litigation due to unsafe cladding linked to Grenfell. It reinforces the need for manufacturers to meet stringent safety standards and enhances regulatory oversight due to reforms like the Building Safety Act 2022.

Equans’ case may encourage other claimants and contractors affected by defective ACM panels to seek legal redress, while pressuring manufacturers to act transparently about safety risks.