< continued - go back >

At a joint site inspection on October 8, 2003 with Cembrit, Countryside, East Thames and Apex, East Thames confirmed it had been entirely happy with Apex’ work but all 40 roofs at Balmoral Close would have to be replaced.

Mr. Leader was worried. He cancelled all his orders and payments to Cembrit and decided to use only Marley products until the matter was resolved.

At another meeting in November 2003 Dansk wanted some slates for testing by Stanger Laboratories but Cembrit thought the problem was due to a lack of rivets or rivets that were too weak.

On December 3 2003, Cembrit confirmed that the slates had curled, it was having tests made and Cembrit would pay the reasonable costs of the curved slates being re-fixed with new rivets.

When Apex asked if there had been any similar problems Cembrit said only a small proportion on three other sites and in all cases it was due to faulty installation.

Stanger’s initial report followed Cembrit’s rivet theories. It found that the paint thickness on the underside of the slates was thinner than the top surface (which could allow uneven moisture absorption and curling) but the solution was to re-fix the slates with Czech-made rivets, which were stronger than British ones. Cembrit used this report to say it would pay for re-riveting but claimed that only 2-3% of slates had curled on 25 south facing roofs.

Mr. Leader thought this underestimated the size of the problem and reminded Cembrit that the client, East Thames, wanted all 40 affected roofs stripping and replacing.

He also thought that removing rivets would damage existing slates.

A second Stranger report reinforced the Zeeland slates’ tendency to curl due to inconsistent paint distribution on the upper and lower surfaces.

About the same time Dansk realized it had a serious problem on its hands. It outlined the problem in a rather damning internal letter on February 24, 2004 acknowledging that it might have a weak case and saying it should avoid litigation.

Meetings and correspondence continued through 2004 with no resolution, with Mr. Leader becoming increasingly frustrated. By August 2004, Dansk had minimized the issue by saying it had improved its manufacturing process by providing better paint coatings and slate composition to reduce curling.

This satisfied the British Board of Agrment who at that time decided to take no further action.

Mr. Leader was now isolated.

There was no solution for the Aberfeldy roofs and Crest Nicholson was starting to complain about similar problems on the Greenhithe site.

So Mr. Leader decided to go public and issued a press release that Construction News picked up.

Cembrit got upset about the publicity.

During correspondence between the solicitors, Cembrit also realized that Apex had been given a copy of its damning February 24, 2004 internal letter by an ex consultant of Cembrits’ and Apex was using it.

Cembrit thought the letter was private and sued Apex alleging breach of confidence and infringement of copyright.

Meanwhile, East Thames insisted that 59 roofs at Aberfeldy be stripped and replaced.

Apex did this in August 2006 using Garsdale slates.

At a lengthy trial (13 days of hearings) in November and December 2006, in which even the fixers gave evidence, the judge concluded that the slates that had lifted their rivets at both sites were of unsatisfactory quality. However, it had not been established that the slates that had merely curled were defective.

The Dansk letter of February 24, 2004 was copyright and protected as confidential information.

THE RESULT?

Over 3 years after the defective slates had first lifted, the matter is not fully resolved. No wonder the construction industry has such a poor public image.

© Ann Wright LLB FCIOB Contracts Advisor 01675 466 009

Case: Cembrit Blunn Ltd; Dansk Eternit Holdings A/S -v- Apex Roofing Services LLP & Roy Alexander Leader. High Court -February 5, 2007.