Built Environment Archives - Hawkins Forensic Investigation

Celebrating 10 Years of Hawkins in Singapore and Hong Kong

Chloe Duggan — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 13:12:42 +0000

This year marks 10 years since Hawkins established teams in Singapore and Hong Kong, expanding our global presence and enabling us to better support clients across Asia. Over the past decade, we have witnessed remarkable changes in industry, infrastructure, shipping, and technology, while continuing to help clients understand failures, resolve disputes, and learn valuable engineering lessons.

As we celebrate this milestone, we are also reflecting on the people and projects that have shaped our journey.

Hawkins Singapore

One of the earliest cases undertaken by our Singapore team was the investigation of a fire aboard a vessel. The case was led by David Rose, who today serves as Hawkins’ Regional Director in Singapore.

Since joining Hawkins in 2001, David has undertaken more than 1,000 forensic investigations involving fires, explosions, petrochemical incidents, confined space accidents and marine losses. His experience spans everything from domestic and commercial fires to major multi-million-pound losses involving industrial facilities, petrochemical plants and vessels around the world. He has also provided expert evidence before courts, arbitration panels, and public inquiries across multiple jurisdictions, including Singapore, China, Thailand, and the UK

We asked David about his time in Singapore:

We’ve come a long way in the 10 years since Graham Cooper and I opened the office in Singapore. Today our growing team works on multi-disciplinary cases across the region including Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand. We have grown to meet the needs of our clients and broadened the core skills of our investigators to include structural and geotechnical civil engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, myself a chemist and a Master mariner.

One of the most rewarding aspects of the past decade has been the relationships we’ve built with clients and colleagues across the region. It’s been a pleasure to see the Singapore office develop, and I’m excited about the opportunities the next 10 years will bring and to see how our office will grow.”

Hawkins Hong Kong

Our Hong Kong team is headed up by Dr Sophie Parsons. She brings extensive experience in marine incidents, materials failure analysis, corrosion and contamination. A Chartered Engineer and Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, Sophie investigates failures involving glass, ceramics, plastics and metals, as well as lift and wire rope incidents. Her marine work includes cargo and hull damage, marine coating failures, cargo liquefaction, and associated laboratory testing, while her contamination investigations assess the effects of fresh, salt and foul water and other substances on working components. She has also given expert testimony in Hong Kong, Singapore and the UK.

Sophie had the following to say:

“We’ve built a great team here in Hong Kong over the last 10 years. Whilst we started off mostly as fire investigators for land-based and maritime clients, we now investigate materials failure, mechanical failure, and structural/civil engineering claims. We can also support our clients in Cantonese, Mandarin and Indonesian languages. To mark our 10 years, we’ve expanded into a new office where we recently held our first face-to-face CPD training sessions. We look forward to welcoming more of you to our office in 2027.”

As we mark 10 years in Singapore and Hong Kong, we would like to thank the clients, insurers, law firms, brokers, loss adjusters and industry professionals who have been part of our journey. Their trust and partnership have enabled us to support some of the region’s most challenging and interesting investigations.

Join us at the 2026 Drinks Receptions

To celebrate this milestone and look ahead to the next chapter, we will be hosting two complimentary evening drinks receptions for clients and colleagues. Our Hong Kong reception will take place at Cooshti Quarry Bay on Thursday 5 November 2026. The next month our Singapore reception will be held in The Singapore Cricket Club on Wednesday 9 December.

Both evenings will offer an opportunity to meet Hawkins’ forensic experts, reconnect with colleagues, clients and friends old and new. You will also have the chance to enjoy drinks and canapés while sharing memories from the last 10 years and discussing the opportunities and challenges ahead.

Places are free, but registration is required:

The post Celebrating 10 Years of Hawkins in Singapore and Hong Kong appeared first on Hawkins Forensic Investigation.

Hawkins Roma 2026 – Case study e aperitivo

Kirsten Beckwith — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 11:39:04 +0000

Siamo lieti di invitare i nostri clienti e i loro colleghi allo Starhotels Metropole di Roma il 1° dicembre 2026 a partire dalle 17:30. La serata prevede una serie di interventi tecnici a cura degli esperti di Hawkins e, a seguire, un aperitivo di networking. Parleremo di rivalse in ambito responsabilità civile da prodotto, delle nuove frontiere delle frodi negli incendi dolosi e di molto altro.

Registratevi qui, oppure utilizzando il pulsante qui sotto. Vi aspettiamo. Per qualsiasi domanda, non esitate a contattarci.

The post Hawkins Roma 2026 – Case study e aperitivo appeared first on Hawkins Forensic Investigation.

Hawkins Milano 2026 – Case study e aperitivo

Kirsten Beckwith — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 11:39:04 +0000

Siamo lieti di invitare i nostri clienti e i loro colleghi all’Hilton Milan il 3 dicembre 2026 a partire dalle 17:30. La serata prevede una serie di interventi tecnici a cura degli esperti di Hawkins e, a seguire, un aperitivo di networking. Parleremo di rivalse in ambito responsabilità civile da prodotto, delle nuove frontiere delle frodi negli incendi dolosi e di molto altro.

Registratevi qui, oppure utilizzando il pulsante qui sotto. Vi aspettiamo. Per qualsiasi domanda, non esitate a contattarci.

The post Hawkins Milano 2026 – Case study e aperitivo appeared first on Hawkins Forensic Investigation.

Congratulations to Fraser Lyall on Achieving Chartered Surveyor Status

Chloe Duggan — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 10:15:01 +0000

Morham + Brotchie Partnership is delighted to congratulate Fraser Lyall on successfully passing his Assessment of Professional Competence (APC) and achieving Chartered Surveyor status with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) – the world’s leading professional body for those working in land, property, construction and infrastructure.

Achieving Chartered status marks an important milestone in Fraser’s career and reflects the hard work, dedication and commitment he has demonstrated throughout his professional development journey.

Fraser joined Morham + Brotchie Partnership in 2019 as an Apprentice Quantity Surveyor and has continued to develop his expertise while working alongside senior team members on a diverse range of projects involving both traditional and contemporary buildings. His focused, pragmatic approach and commitment to achieving the best outcomes for clients have made him a valued member of the team.

Reflecting on his achievement, Fraser said:

“I am proud to have achieved Chartered status and grateful to everyone who supported me throughout the APC process. It has been a challenging but rewarding journey, and I look forward to continuing to develop my career at Morham + Brotchie Partnership.”

Fraser also expressed his gratitude to the many people who supported him throughout the process, thanking his colleagues, friends and family for their encouragement and guidance. He made special mention of the invaluable support provided by Sean Miller, Euan Watson and Jamie Mathers during his APC journey.

Everyone at Morham + Brotchie Partnership extends their congratulations to Fraser on becoming a Chartered Quantity Surveyor and wishes him every success as he continues to build his career within the profession.

The post Congratulations to Fraser Lyall on Achieving Chartered Surveyor Status appeared first on Hawkins Forensic Investigation.

The Hidden Price of Vague Specifications

Chloe Duggan — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 14:09:46 +0000

The Museum of the Future is often described as one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. This reputation is due in part to its unique façade, where the glazing forms quotes from the poetry of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed, the Ruler of Dubai.

The building’s structure is in the form of a diagrid with horizontal members spaced vertically every 4.5 metres.The diagrid supports both the internal floors and the external façade.

The façade comprises approximately 1,000 panels made from glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) overlaid with stainless steel sheets. Due to the calligraphy writing forming the glazing, each panel is unique.

As might be expected on such a technically-unique project, there were a number of obstacles to overcome, particularly in the design of the project-defining façade. Indeed, the final cost of the façade was roughly double the tender price submitted by the façade sub-contractor, with each panel ultimately costing around AED 250,000.

The main contractor and the façade sub-contractor were unable to agree on how these cost increases had arisen or which party should bear financial responsibility. This resulted in proceedings before the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court, where I acted as an independent expert to help the Court determine these complex issues.

So, how could the tender price differ so dramatically from the final cost? Did the façade sub-contractor underprice the works, or did something more fundamental cause the cost to increase?

Background

The façade was tendered on the basis of a performance specification which stated:

“Drawings and information in this Specification are intended to show the general form and arrangement of the cladding, and basic cladding systems, including modules and envelopes of space allowed for cladding that must be adhered to. The contractor shall complete the engineering design of the cladding to comply with this Specification and shall be responsible for the design supply and installation of the cladding. The visual aspects of this design must be maintained.”

With regard to design responsibility the specification stated:

“This is a performance specification, accompanied by drawings showing the design intent. The contractor shall be responsible for the development of any information beyond IFC to reflect any specific design or technical aspects required by the specialist façade sub-contractor. The façade drawings issued as part of the tender package reflect the detailed design, and the specification outlines the required technical performance of the building envelope.”

The GFRP system was described as having a “stainless steel cladding or skin bonded…”

Horizontal and vertical joints were stated to be “as indicated on the contract drawings.”

The tender drawings for the façade stated that panel sizes were to be:

“2.5m x 4.5m or 9m x 3m, vertical span 4.5m or 9m typ (to preferred contractor module)…”

The panelisation process was described as:

Preliminary subdivision of façade surface along horizontal diagrid members.
Secondary transversal subdivision to achieve panel sizeswithin themaximum allowable limits by main UAE suppliers of GFRP and close to single curvature configuration.
Manipulation of the panel geometry to minimise the deviation from single curvature within an acceptable tolerance for the manufacture of thestainless steelcladding is undertaken. Panels are single curved with limited areas of minimal double curvature.

Within its tender response the façade sub-contractor stated:

“The Panels of Main façade are proposed to be 9 Mtr. x 2.20 Mtr. in size with double curvature to achieve the required outer surface.”

As part of its tender return, the façade sub-contractor produced a mock-up to show that production of its preferred panel size was feasible. The mock-up indicated that the stainless steel sheets were to be mechanically fixed to the GFRP panels using rivets, as the adhesive alone could not be relied upon to secure sheets to the GFRP panels.

A letter of intent (LOI) was issued to the façade sub-contractor within which is stated:

“All qualifications, exclusions, clarifications, etc. stated within the subcontractors quotation shall be deemed withdrawn and shall not form part of this Letter of Intent…”

Attached to the LOI was a list of issued for-construction drawings and documents. The content of these was identical to the tender documents; they had not been updated to reflect the façade sub-contractors tender proposal.

The façade sub-contractors contract included that “The Sub-contractor is to allow for all design changes of a minor nature.”

Post contract, the client and consultant team requested that a number of alternative panel module options be developed. It was submitted that this went beyond simply assisting with the finalisation of the design, and instead removed the façade sub-contractor’s contractual right to develop its own preferred module size, as stated in its tender proposal.

The “approved” panel module size resulted in panels significantly larger than the 9×2.2m units on which the façade sub-contractor had based its price, with the sub-contractor alleging that over 70% of the panels exceeded this size. This not only required a greater volume of foam to create the moulds for the GFRP panels, but also necessitated changes to the fabrication and production processes.

Following the production of visual mock ups, the proposed use of rivets to mechanically fix the stainless-steel sheets was rejected. Instead, welded studs were introduced. These studs had to be welded to the back of the stainless-steel sheets in a manner that avoided any burn marks on the visible face., This added a further production step to ensure precise alignment with corresponding holes in the GFRP panels.

In addition, vertical hairline joints between the stainless-steel sheets bonded to the GFRP panels were rejected, with full length sheets across width of the panels requested to mitigate the need for vertical joints between the stainless-steel sheets.

The increased panel size and curvature also created difficulties in bending the stainless-steel sheets to match the panels. To overcome this, a hexagon scoring pattern was introduced which involved laser cutting slots in the stainless-steel sheets to improve its ability to conform to the panel curvature. Moreover, the horizontal joints between sheets were requested to be cut with a ‘zig zag’ pattern to give the impression of a single continuous stainless-steel sheet on each GFRP panel.

Parties’ Positions

The façade sub-contractor submitted that it was unable to verify the additional cost arising from these changes, relative to its tender proposal, until a number of panels had actually been produced. Once this had occurred, the façade sub-contractor suggested the cost would now be double the amount originally tendered.

Despite the changes introduced, the sub-contractor’s claim for additional costs was rejected. Moreover, the client and its design team rejected the visual mock ups without reference to the specification or to any non-conformance with the Contract documents. They further asserted that the introduction of the hexagon scoring pattern was required to address the façade sub-contractor’s alleged inability to resolve bonding issues between the stainless steel sheets and the GFRP panels, and was a means of achieving the design intent of stainless steel bonded to the GFRP over a doubly curved surface, despite the original intent being a single curved façade.

Court’s Findings

In its judgment, the Court agreed that the changes in the panel size were not “minor”, expressly accepting the expert evidence of Mr Smith regarding the panel sizes having been increased beyond 9m x 2m. The Court was satisfied that changes to the design, increased panel size and the introduction of the hexagon pattern were for aesthetic reasons, and “not based on engineering necessity”.

Whilst it was intended for the contractor to complete the technical design of the façade, the performance specification and design intent were found to lack sufficient constraints to maintain the architect’s vision without the need for design changes during the contract works.

In accordance with the contractual documentation, the panel sizing was defined but was for the façade sub-contractor to develop in line with its preferred approach. However, the Court found that the façade sub-contractor was not permitted to develop its preferred module size, and therefore it could not be held responsible for the increase in costs.

The Court also determined that the specification was not sufficiently detailed to prohibit the use of visible fixings. If the intention had been to require ‘secret’ or ‘invisible’ fixings, such terminology should have been expressly included. Instead, the specification merely stated the stainless-steel sheets were to be bonded to the GFRP panels.

Similarly, neither the specification nor the drawings were sufficiently detailed to prescribe the required joint location or the joint pattern.

These findings, including the Court’s acceptance of Mr Smith’s expert evidence on the nature and impact of the design changes, highlight the importance of clear, unambiguous, and robust specifications and contract documents. Such clarity minimises gaps in information, reduces the risk of unexpected cost increases, and helps prevent disputes.

Postscript

Please note that the contents of this article are based on publicly available information and drawn directly from the judgment in the DIFC Court proceedings. The outcomes of these proceedings also relied on the specific contractual framework in place between the parties. Accordingly, any dispute arising in similar circumstances will ultimately depend on its own specific facts. On that basis, this article is provided for information only and does not constitute technical or legal advice.

About The Author

Austen Smith is a Hawkins’ forensic expert based in our Dubai office. He appeared for the façade sub-contractor in the above case. He opines on building failures due to defective design and workmanship, fire safety defects, scope of work, design approvals, and variation disputes amongst others. Austen is registered with the Architect’s Registration Board, is a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Chartered Institute of Building, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the Society of Construction Law and the Academy of Experts, and is on the roster of arbitrators with the Saudi Centre for Commercial Arbitration.

The post The Hidden Price of Vague Specifications appeared first on Hawkins Forensic Investigation.

Yvonne Ainsworth Presents “The Whole Story” at the CILA Conference

Chloe Duggan — Fri, 09 Oct 2026 15:40:12 +0000

Hawkins Principal Associate Yvonne Ainsworth shared her specialist geotechnical engineering knowledge at the Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters (CILA) Conference with her presentation, “The Hole Story – Understanding Sinkhole Formation and Investigation”.

In her presentation, Yvonne explored how sinkholes form and why establishing their cause requires a careful understanding of both geology and human activity. She explained how natural sinkholes can develop over thousands of years as water dissolves soluble rock, while washout sinkholes may appear rapidly when large flows of water remove loose granular material. Drawing on case studies, she also highlighted the potential consequences for buildings and communities and the investigation techniques used to determine what has happened below ground.

A Chartered Civil Engineer and Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Yvonne has more than 25 years’ experience in the UK and international construction industry. Her expertise covers civil, structural, and geotechnical engineering, with particular strength in piling, diaphragm walling, complex foundations, and retaining-wall projects. She combines hands-on design and construction experience with specialist knowledge of failure investigation and risk assessment, enabling her to analyse technically challenging, ground-related incidents, and explain their causes clearly.

Yvonne was joined at the conference by Hawkins colleagues Graeme Drysdale, Business Development Manager and Fellow of CILA, and Andrew Moncrieff, Principal Associate and specialist in fire investigation and forensic geology. Together, their attendance reflected Hawkins’ broad technical expertise and longstanding engagement with the loss-adjusting and insurance communities.

The post Yvonne Ainsworth Presents “The Whole Story” at the CILA Conference appeared first on Hawkins Forensic Investigation.

Hawkins Strengthens Hydrology Expertise with Appointment of Clare Waller

Chloe Duggan — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 11:52:18 +0000

Hawkins is pleased to welcome Dr Clare Waller as a Senior Associate Hydrologist based in our Cambridge office.

With more than 20 years of experience in hydrology and water management, Clare brings a wealth of expertise spanning flood risk, hydrological modelling, water management and infrastructure resilience. Her career has encompassed senior roles across government, consultancy and academia, providing her with a broad and highly respected perspective on the management and analysis of complex hydrological issues.

Clare holds a first-class degree in Geography from the University of Cambridge and a PhD in river modelling. She is a Chartered Geographer, a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, and a member of the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management.

Before joining Hawkins, Clare served as a Senior Technical Adviser within a national flood hydrology team, where she played a leading role in the development of flood estimation guidance and contributed to nationally significant flood risk and infrastructure programmes. Her work included flood forecasting, analysis of major flood events, and the delivery of research projects designed to improve flood estimation methodologies.

Throughout her consultancy career, Clare has led multidisciplinary teams delivering hydrological assessments, flood risk studies and drainage strategies for major development and infrastructure projects. She has extensive experience in providing the technical evidence required to support planning applications and address complex regulatory challenges. Her work has also included reservoir safety studies and infrastructure investment business cases for risk management authorities.

At Hawkins, Clare will further strengthen our forensic hydrology capabilities. She combines deep technical knowledge with a practical understanding of flood events and hydrological failures, enabling her to deliver robust, evidence-based analysis. An experienced communicator, she is skilled at presenting complex technical findings clearly and effectively to both specialist and non-technical audiences.

Clare joined Hawkins in August 2026 and will support clients across a broad range of investigations involving hydrology, flooding and water-related infrastructure.

The post Hawkins Strengthens Hydrology Expertise with Appointment of Clare Waller appeared first on Hawkins Forensic Investigation.

Hawkins Hong Kong Drinks Reception 2026

Kirsten Beckwith — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 08:32:36 +0000

We are delighted to invite clients and colleagues to Cooshti Quarry Bay on Thursday, November 5th from 6:00pm. Join the Hawkins forensic experts for an evening of networking, drinks and canapes to celebrate 10 years in Hong Kong.

Please register here or using the button below. We look forward to seeing you. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

The post Hawkins Hong Kong Drinks Reception 2026 appeared first on Hawkins Forensic Investigation.

Clare Waller

Chloe Duggan — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 09:40:04 +0000

Clare is a Senior Associate Hydrologist with more than twenty years’ experience in hydrology and water management across government, consultancy and academia. Clare graduated with a first-class degree in Geography from the University of Cambridge in 2002, followed by a PhD in river modelling in 2009. She is a Chartered Geographer, a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, and a member of the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management.

Prior to joining Hawkins, Clare was a Senior Technical Adviser in the Environment Agency’s National Flood Hydrology team. She was a lead author of the Environment Agency’s Flood Estimation Guidelines and advised on nationally significant programmes, including NaFRA2 flood risk mapping and major infrastructure projects. Her work included real-time flood forecasting and post-event analysis of major flood events, supporting operational response and briefing activities. She also delivered research projects aimed at improving flood estimation methods.

Clare’s consultancy experience spans a wide range of hydrological and flood-related investigations through her work at Stantec (formerly Peter Brett Associates and Hannah Reed Associates) and Halcrow. She has led multidisciplinary teams delivering hydrological analyses, flood risk assessments and drainage strategies for major developments and planning applications, helping to resolve regulatory objections through robust technical evidence. For risk management authorities, including Internal Drainage Boards, Clare has delivered reservoir safety studies and business cases to support investment in infrastructure management.

Clare brings a rigorous, evidence-based approach to forensic hydrology, combining technical expertise with a practical understanding of hydrological failures and flood events. She is an experienced communicator who presents complex hydrological evidence clearly and confidently, providing technical findings in a way that is accessible to both expert and non-technical audiences.

Claire joined Hawkins in August 2026 and is a Senior Associate based in our Cambridge office.

The post Clare Waller appeared first on Hawkins Forensic Investigation.

From Ignition to Impact: A Forensic Fire Investigation

Chloe Duggan — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 13:18:18 +0000

Fire investigation is a systematic process that can be used to determine the origin, cause, and development of a fire. It involves the careful examination of fire-damaged structures, analysis of burn patterns, and identification of potential ignition sources. Hawkins fire investigators also consider witness statements, fire dynamics, and material behaviour. By combining engineering expertise with hands-on experience, our investigators reconstruct fire scenes using advanced techniques such as 3D modelling, laboratory testing, and computational analysis. This comprehensive methodology enables Hawkins to provide clear, evidence-based conclusions that support insurance claims, legal proceedings, and safety improvements.

Setting the scene

An industrial building, subdivided into three separate units (Units 1 to 3), was occupied by different businesses. A fire broke out over a weekend and burned for several hours before being brought under control and extinguished by the Fire Service.

The building was a steel portal frame building with block, brick and composite panel covered walls and a composite panel roof. Due to the intensity of the fire, the roof of Unit 2 collapsed and separating walls between Unit 2 and the adjacent units sustained significant damage.

Hawkins Initial Investigation

James Clarke, a Hawkins fire investigator specialising in fire engineering design, fire safety management and fire risk assessment was instructed to determine the cause of the fire. Although most of the items in Unit 2 had been consumed in the fire, James recovered and analysed CCTV footage, which alongside his onsite investigation, confirmed that the fire started in Unit 2. The likely cause was by timber waste produced through the manufacturing process. However, it was also clear from our investigation that there was significant fire and smoke damage inside the adjacent units.

Applying Fire Engineering Expertise

James produced a report detailing the fire’s origin and the resulting damage. He then engaged with a loss adjuster to discuss potential insurance claims related to fire and smoke spread.

Subsequently, James was instructed to assess the insurance policy conditions and investigate the factors that could have led to the fire’s spread between units. This included evaluating the construction of the roof, and the separating walls, and the building owner’s responsibilities under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (‘RRO’).

Understanding the Building’s Fire Safety Design and Construction

James began with a desktop review of the available documentation. This included planning applications, leases, photographs and interviews with witnesses and fire service personnel. He confirmed that the building was originally constructed in 1952—prior to the introduction of national Building Regulations in 1963. Planning records showed that the layout was altered in 2007, before the current owner acquired the property.

Using photographs and site visits, James assessed the materials used in the building’s construction. He focused on the walls separating the units and evaluated the presence and condition of active and passive fire protection systems.

According to the 2007 fire safety design guidance, industrial or storage premises divided into different occupancies must have compartment walls and floors (a specific type of fire resisting construction), with a minimum one-hour fire resistance (especially in the absence of sprinklers).

Key considerations during the inspection included:

Any openings or penetrations through compartmentation, or imperfections of fit, should be adequately fire-stopped to achieve the same period of fire resistance as the wall
The fire resisting construction should protect against fire exposure from either side
Fire resisting construction should extend to the underside of the roof covering (for example, roof tiles)
The risk of fire spread over the top of the wall via the roof materials must be addressed
Any damage or gaps that could compromise fire resistance must be identified

Hawkins Site Investigation

James’ site inspection revealed that the walls separating the units were not fire resisting where they should have been. Despite the severe fire damaged, it was possible to compare their construction against the undamaged walls, and find traces of materials and systems to help determine how the walls might have resisted a fire.

Findings included:

It was clear that fire and smoke had bypassed the walls of Unit 2 causing severe fire damage at high level in the adjacent units. Combustible materials found on the floor were also damaged by heat and smoke.

Furthermore, the external walls and roof, around Unit 2 had burned and were severely fire damaged. These walls and the roof were constructed from metal sandwich panels, comprising combustible foam insulation. James reviewed CCTV footage and firefighter interviews to understand the fire’s progression.

The footage revealed an explosion in Unit 2, caused by heated compressed gas cylinders, which damaged a compartment wall. The explosion violently expelled the roller shutter door, and smoke was seen issuing from the roof 15 minutes later. The Fire Service arrived shortly thereafter.

James calculated that the explosion likely compromised the compartment wall between Units 2 and 3, rendering it ineffective in resisting fire spread. Additionally, the lack of fire-stopping at the top of the wall between Units 1 and 2 allowed smoke to enter Unit 1, causing extensive damage and contamination to stored stock.

Conclusions

Fire Engineering Support on Investigations and Claims

James explained to the client what fire resisting construction should have been in place and how it should have performed, compared to how it actually behaved during the incident. He also described how the Fire Service had to respond as a result of these deficiencies. Given the evidence collected and presented, it was clear that the lack of adequate fire-resisting construction between the units was a significant factor – and the primary reason for the extensive smoke damage.

Although the compartment walls were constructed in 2007, before the owner had purchased the building, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO) states that a Responsible Person has a duty to conduct a suitable and sufficient Fire Risk Assessment (‘FRA’) of the property. An FRA must be recorded if:

James concluded in his opinion that the building owner, along with each of the companies who held tenancies at the premises, were Responsible Persons under the RRO. Although the owner had no direct day-to-day use of the property, they still had a duty to ensure reasonable fire safety precautions were in place to protect employees and any relevant persons (tenants and visitors).

While it is possible that an FRA had been conducted neither the building owner, nor any of the companies leasing the units had recorded one. In James’ opinion, had an FRA been carried out, a Responsible Person (or a fire risk assessor employed by a Responsible Person) should have noticed that there was no proper fire resisting construction between the units.

These conclusions were presented in a report to the building’s insurer to enable them to act swifty on third-party claims and enable potential future claims to be made against those responsible for designing and building the fire resisting construction in 2007.

Important Information for Future Matters and Potential Claims

The Building Safety Act 2022 introduced significant changes the fire safety design and management of buildings. Notably, Section 156 of the Building Safety Act 2022 amended the RRO such that:

The Responsible Person(s) must not appoint a person to assist with completing or reviewing an FRA unless that person is competent (RRO Article 9),
The FRA must be recorded as soon as is practicable after the assessment is made or reviewed (RRO Article 9),
Responsible Persons must now record their FRAs in full, not just the significant findings (RRO Article 9), and
The FRA must be recorded, irrespective of the number of employees (RRO Article 11).

About The Author

James Clarke is a Senior Associate at Hawkins, specialising in fire investigation and fire engineering. He has a background in mechanical engineering and has worked across the pharmaceutical, telecommunications, and mining sectors, gaining experience in hazardous environments and process optimisation.

James later joined Arup as a fire engineer, where he developed fire safety strategies for a wide range of buildings. At Hawkins, he investigates the causes of fires and examines how building design and construction defects contribute to fire development and spread. His expertise includes fire modelling, fire safety management, and passive fire protection systems. If you would like James to investigate a fire, please get in touch.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/section/156

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1541/article/11

The post From Ignition to Impact: A Forensic Fire Investigation appeared first on Hawkins Forensic Investigation.