Combustible cladding could be used safely when designing buildings and only led to added risk if used by careless, incompetent building-industry "villains", a court has heard.
German manufacturer 3A Composites and its Australian distributor Halifax Vogel Group (HVG) are facing a Federal Court class action over a type of cladding linked to several disastrous blazes worldwide.
They include the Grenfell Tower inferno in London in July 2017, when 72 people died, and the non-fatal Lacrosse fire in Melbourne in November 2014.
The court previously heard this type of cladding could ooze, melt and deform, ultimately aiding the spread of fire throughout a building.
On Wednesday, 3A's barrister Matthew Darke SC said while the class action sought to blame his client, properly assessing the fire safety of newly constructed buildings lay "wholly and solely" with architects, safety engineers and certifiers.
He said no one would assume 3A's Alucobond PE or Plus cladding, which are targeted in the class action, could be used in any way or in any quantity on any type of building without ever increasing the fire danger.
"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," Mr Darke said.
There was no secret Alucobond PE or Plus contained a combustible polyethylene core, the court was told.
Furthermore, 3A also manufactured a non-combustible cladding, Alucobond A2, Mr Darke said.
In March 2021, Victoria's Court of Appeal found the architect, fire-safety engineer and building certifier of the Lacrosse tower had been negligent in designing the apartments, Justice Stewart Anderson heard.
HVG's barrister Nicholas Owens SC said it was strange the class action sued his client and 3A despite admitting to an industry-wide problem with building professionals who did not do their jobs.
There was nothing wrong with the cladding, the issue was its misuse, he said.
The owners would need to persuade the court why the incompetence of the building professionals was not relevant to their case, Mr Owens said.
Those leading the class action are the owners corporations of the Shore building in Dolls Point and an apartment complex in Five Dock, which installed the Alucobond PE and Plus panels respectively.
For the Five Dock property, its builder had not accepted responsibility and had failed to answer queries by a fire-safety engineer who spotted a potential issue with the cladding, Mr Owens said.
“If one’s looking as it were for the villain in Five Dock, it looks very much like it might be him,” he said.
Mr Darke earlier argued 3A could not be held liable under Australian consumer law because it was a German company that did all of its business there, he said.
HVG was sold the cladding and carried on an entirely separate business in Australia, making promotional claims through brochures, its website and trade shows to local customers that were not always approved by 3A, Mr Darke said.
"That alone in our respectful submission will be sufficient for the applicants' claims against my client to be rejected,” he said.
Claims the owners corporations and building lessees who were part of the class action should be compensated under consumer laws should also fail, Mr Darke said.
The owners were not consumers who purchased the cladding for personal, domestic or household use, but rather it was a commercial product sold to facade installers, he said.
Similar claims brought against 3A in New Zealand were dismissed by the country's High Court in May 2022 because the cladding manufacturer could not be sued under local consumer laws, Mr Darke said.
The hearing will resume on Monday.
