A group of strata owners ordered to replace aluminium cladding on their buildings have lost a class action alleging misleading conduct by the manufacturer and supplier of the panels.

The claims were not well suited to a representative action because “they raise highly individual factual issues”, Federal Court judge Stewart Anderson says.

The strata corporation for the Shore building in Dolls Point, NSW, and the owners of another apartment block at Five Dock, Sydney, sued German manufacturer 3A Composites and Australian supplier Halifax Vogel Group (HVG) over the aluminium composite panel products Alucobond PE and Alucobond Plus.

The owners argued the panels were not of “merchantable” or acceptable quality under consumer law, presented unacceptable risk of fire and did not comply with the building code when used as advertised.

They also argued misleading conduct in the advertising and promotion of the products.

Justice Anderson has rejected the claims that 3A and HVG breached the Trade Practices Act and consumer law regarding misleading conduct claims.

He agrees with 3A and HVG that a 2018 government ban was caused by inappropriate use rather than the inherent characteristics of the Alucobond products, and he rejects the owners’ argument that the product was not of acceptable quality.

Justice Anderson says aluminium panels were used extensively in Australia between 2009 and 2019, mostly for external cladding, and it is common ground that the two Alucobond products were “combustible” as defined under the building code.

The Shore building was completed in 2012. Following London’s Grenfell tower fire in June 2017, the NSW government banned some polyethylene products in 2018 and the Shore owners were told their cladding needed to be replaced.

The work was completed in 2020 and they sought to recover costs of $461,307 for the work, plus $16,632 in increased insurance premiums between 2018 and 2020.

The Five Dock owners hired a consultant to review their cladding in 2020 and decided in 2021 to remove the Alucobond Plus. The work had not been done when the case was heard in 2024, because the owners’ corporation did not have the funds. They claimed $49,036 in insurance premium increases.

Read the judgment here.