UK courts deliver first rulings on Building Safety Act cladding claims and remediation orders
UK construction counsel must reassess contribution and remediation exposure after the first s.149 BSA cladding judgment and a tribunal ruling on Remediation Contribution Orders.
Three decisions shape post-Grenfell liability. In Mulalley v Sto, the High Court quantified a contractor's s.149 Building Safety Act contribution claim against a cladding supplier at £1.77m (87.5% of £2.03m recoverable loss), confirming that default judgment does not relieve a claimant of proving loss and that causation analysis can sharply reduce recoverable remedial costs. The court also enforced a Building Liability Order under s.130 against a foreign parent. In Clerkenwell Lifestyle v HG Construction, the court enforced an adjudicator's decision, holding that informal emails using the word 'agree' did not vary JCT completion dates and that defences not raised in adjudication cannot ground later natural justice challenges. Finally, the First-tier Tribunal granted a full Remediation Contribution Order under s.124 BSA, ruling that the s.120 test is single-stage (risk, not separate defect analysis) and that decision-makers may choose among reasonable remediation routes even if cheaper alternatives existed; litigation costs were excluded.