Landmark Remediation Contribution Order Decision: Grey GR Limited Partnership v Edgewater (Stevenage) Ltd and others [2025]12 February 2025

Factual Background

Vista Tower, a 49.5m-high residential building in Stevenage, was converted from offices to 73 flats in 2016/17. The conversion works, undertaken by Edgewater (Stevenage) Ltd (R1), included the installation of combustible materials in the external walls and inadequate fire stopping measures. The building had two main external wall types. Wall type 1 comprised a cavity wall with blockwork inner leaf and concrete façade panels, containing combustible polyurethane foam insulation injected into the cavity. Wall type 2 consisted of a UPVC window frame system with glazing and blanking panels containing combustible materials including expanded polystyrene.

Post-Grenfell investigations revealed serious fire safety risks in the building. These included combustible materials in both wall types, lack of cavity barriers at compartment lines, inadequate fire stopping around service penetrations, defective fire doors and an uncommissioned sprinkler system. The current freeholder, Grey GR Limited Partnership, has undertaken extensive remedial works costing over £13.2m, supported by Building Safety Fund grants.

Definition of a Defect

The tribunal identified several defects in the building known as Vista Tower that stemmed from its conversion from office to residential use. The main defects included the use of combustible materials in the building’s external walls and inadequate fire stopping, which posed significant fire safety risks. Specifically, the tribunal found that the insulation used in the external wall systems was not compliant with the Building Regulations 2010 and the lack of appropriate fire stopping at junctions and around openings further exacerbated these risks. These defects were identified as relevant because they contributed to potential rapid fire spread, posing a danger to the safety of residents and the structural integrity of the building.

The tribunal addressed the definition of a “defect” in the context of the case. According to the tribunal’s interpretation, a “defect” is not limited solely to non-compliance with the building regulations in force at the time of construction. Instead, it encompasses any aspect of the building work that poses a building safety risk. The tribunal considered the open wording of the Building Safety Act (the “Act”) and concluded that “defect” could include issues that might not strictly violate the building regulations but still contribute to a risk to the safety of people in or around the building, particularly concerning fire spread or structural collapse.

The tribunal noted that if “defect” was limited only to non-compliance with building regulations, the Act would have explicitly stated so. This broader interpretation aligns with the Act’s intention to ensure safety in residential buildings, especially following the findings from the independent review after the Grenfell Tower fire. The tribunal emphasised that non-compliance with building regulations is just one way a defect might be identified, but the scope is wider to include various safety risks that may not have been adequately addressed by the regulations at the time.

Main Legal Points Considered

The tribunal’s decision provides important guidance on several key aspects of RCOs. Regarding the association test, the tribunal confirmed that while association through common directorship alone may not automatically justify an RCO, additional linking factors may call for explanation or countervailing evidence. These factors included use of common business names/branding, family connections, financial dealings between companies and opaque or unreliable corporate records.

On the question of liability, the tribunal rejected arguments that RCOs should be limited to individual orders for specified shares. Instead, it held that a single RCO could be made against multiple respondents on a joint and several basis where just and equitable to do so.

The tribunal took a broad approach to recoverable costs. These included investigation and expert reports, temporary safety measures, design development, project management, full remediation works and consequential works reasonably required as part of the remediation package.

Practical Implications

This judgment is an important clarification on what constitutes a defect, specifically that non-compliance with building regulation is just one and not the only determinant. The decision underscores the necessity of thoroughly assessing the safety risks associated with building works, beyond mere compliance with the building regulations.

This decision also serves as a reminder that the tribunal is prepared to scrutinise the underlying corporate structures to ensure that safety concerns are adequately addressed.