Building Safety Act enforcement – six cases that have redefined liability and risk

Corporate structures offer no safe harbour. Recent rulings confirm that associated companies, parent entities and even later acquirers can be held jointly and severally liable for remediation costs – sometimes decades after construction. Judges scrutinise ownership links, financial interdependence and group presentation to investors.

Voluntary action does not preclude recovery. Developers who remediate defects without legal compulsion can still pursue claims against consultants and contractors, aided by the BSA’s extended limitation periods. Professional advisers now face heightened exposure, reinforcing the need for robust contractual protections.

Leaseholder protections bite hard. Attempts to pass on legacy legal and professional costs have failed, with courts applying Schedule 8 retrospectively. Landlords must absorb these costs and factor them into future risk models.

In this round-up, we provide key takeaways from six landmark cases decided over the past year. Each illustrates how the BSA is being interpreted and enforced, highlighting evolving obligations for developers, investors, landlords and consultants. Together, they underscore the importance of proactive risk management and comprehensive due diligence across the property lifecycle.

GREY GR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V EDGEWATER (STEVENAGE) LIMITED AND OTHERS

Associated companies could be held jointly and severally liable for remediation even if they weren’t directly involved in the development. Whilst there’s no automatic presumption of liability for associated companies, a wide range of factors may create links that make an order “just and equitable”.

Grey GR bought Vista Tower in 2018 and discovered serious fire safety defects from a residential conversion which took place in 2015. Grey sought a remediation contribution order in respect of the costs of fixing these issues from the developer responsible for the conversion, Edgewater, along with 90 associated entities.

The court considered whether it was “just and equitable” under Section 124 to order the associated entities to contribute towards the remediation costs, based on their corporate links to the developer, ultimately granting a Remediation Costs Order for £13 million against 76 of the entities.

In reaching its judgement, the court considered whether the associated company operated in the building/property sector, was presented to investors as part of the group (e.g. shared name), had common ownership with the Developer, and was involved in financial or other linked dealings.

Key Impacts

• Developers can’t hide behind corporate structures – group companies may be liable.
• Investors must assess group-wide exposure and legacy risks.

Further case details are available here.

URS CORPORATION LTD V BDW TRADING LTD [2025] UKSC 21

Developers who voluntarily fix safety defects can still recover costs and seek contributions from responsible parties. The Court confirmed that Defective Premises Act (DPA) can apply even where developers voluntarily remediate defects without legal obligation or current ownership.

A major developer, BDW Trading Ltd (BDW), undertook voluntary remedial works on two high-rise developments, Capital East and Freemans Meadow, after structural defects were discovered and attributed to URS Corporation Ltd.’s (URS) engineering design of the developments. BDW undertook the works despite no longer owning the development and had not been sued for remediation costs. It sought to recover its costs from URS in negligence and under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA).

The Supreme Court confirmed that claims under the Defective Premises Act (DPA) can proceed up to 30 years after completion, thanks to the BSA’s extended limitation period, even if negligence claims are time-barred.

The Court confirmed that this extension applies even where developers voluntarily remediate defects without legal obligation or current ownership. It also clarified that professional consultants, such as engineers, fall within the DPA’s scope – broadening the reach of statutory duties under the BSA.

Key Impacts

• Voluntary remediation costs are recoverable if the developer acted reasonably in the face of safety risks, reputational harm, or potential future liability.
• Consultants and insurers face heightened exposure, even where developers act voluntarily. Robust contractual protections and risk assessments are needed from the outset of a project.

Further case details are available here.

381 SOUTHWARK PARK ROAD RTM CO. LTD V CLICK ST ANDREWS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) [2024]

Insolvency won’t shield liability if there’s a viable parent company. Holding or parent companies are liable for building safety risks caused by subsidiaries despite separate legal personalities.

Click St Andrews Ltd, a ‘special purpose vehicle’ (SPV) developed 381 Southwark Park Road by adding a new storey on the top of the building.

The court found that the development was completed with building safety risks including structural and fire safety inadequacies. During the proceedings, the SPV entered liquidation and the leaseholder claimants applied for a BLO to assign responsibility for the building safety risks to its parent company Click Group Holdings Ltd.

The crucial consideration was the relationship between the SPV and the associated holding company – particularly common controlling persons, the nature of the companies’ businesses, and the prejudice caused by ordering a BLO. The SPV and associated company clearly shared controlling persons in the form of common directors. The judge further noted that the sole purpose of the SPV was to hold and develop the freehold property, and it was dependent on inter-company or inter-group loans from the associated company. In the absence of any prejudice, the judge considered it just and equitable to impose a BLO. The wealth of the associated parent company was deemed irrelevant.

Key Impacts

• Setting up an SPV to carry out a development and winding up the vehicle following completion will not protect parent companies from long-term liability for future defective works.
• Holding or parent companies are liable for building safety risks caused by closely related subsidiaries despite those subsidiaries having separate legal personalities.

Further case details are available here.

TRIATHLON HOMES LLP V STRATFORD VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP & GET LIVING PLC [2025] EWCA CIV 846

A parent company can be liable for a developer’s defects, even if it didn’t own the developer at the time of construction. Liability can pierce the corporate veil going back up to 30 years, regardless of (lack of) direct involvement in the original development. Ownership transfer in either direction may not draw a line under risk.

Triathlon Homes LLP, a social housing provider and long leaseholder of five residential blocks in the former London Olympic Village sought Remediation Contribution Orders (RCOs) against Get Living Plc, the parent company of the blocks’ developer, Stratford Village Development Partnership (SVDP).

Get Living was not the developer but was held liable due to its association with SVDP as its parent company. The RCOs required the company to pay over £16 million to cover fire safety remediation costs – despite Get Living acquiring SVDP years after the development was completed and Get Living being neither involved in the original development (which used defective cladding) nor having benefitted from the receipt of proceeds of sale.

The Court held that it was “just and equitable”, as required by the BSA, to impose liability on Get Living even for costs incurred before the BSA came into force in June 2022.

Key Impacts

• Prospective corporate investors must consider the risks of inheriting liability when acquiring businesses.
• Investors will need to integrate both legal and technical construction and real estate BSA specific due diligence into their purchasing process, including establishing whether buildings included in the acquisition are “relevant buildings” and may have “relevant defects” as well as whether any remediation orders or RCOs have been issued or are likely.

Further case details are available here.

(NB. It should be noted that leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted but only in respect of the issue as to whether the Act applies to costs incurred prior to the BSA coming into force).

ADRIATIC LAND 5 LTD V LONG LEASEHOLDERS AT HIPPERSLEY POINT [2025]

Landlords can’t charge leaseholders for professional costs related to building safety – even if those costs were from before the Building Safety Act (BSA) came into effect.

Adriatic Land was the freeholder of Hippersley Point, a higher risk building which required cladding remediation and other fire safety works. It applied for an exemption from the need to consult on major building safety works under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Although the Tribunal granted the exemption, it barred Adriatic from passing on the legal costs of its application to leaseholders.

Adriatic appealed this condition and the Court of Appeal held by a 2:1 majority that paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 applies retrospectively: qualifying leaseholders are protected from paying for remediation of “relevant defects” and related legal/professional costs – no matter when  those costs were incurred. It also confirmed this protection doesn’t breach human rights law.

Key Impacts

• All service charges relating to relevant costs caught by the leaseholder protections in Schedule 8 of the BSA ceased to be payable from 28 June 2022, even where these costs had occurred, been demanded or were payable before this date.
• Landlords must absorb legacy costs and factor future allocation risks.
• ‘Late paying’ leaseholders who failed to pay service charges for dispensation or building safety remediation costs before 28 June 2022 will no longer be liable for those costs, while leaseholders who paid before that date aren’t entitled to a refund.

Further case details are available here.

(NB. It should be noted that leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted in respect of the issue as to whether the Act applies to costs incurred prior to the BSA coming into force. The appeal is linked to the Triathlon appeal on the same issue).

ALMACANTAR CENTRE POINT NOMINEE NO.1 LTD & ORS V PENELOPE DE VALK & ORS

BSA leaseholder protections can apply to defective cladding over 30 years old. Almacantar appealed a decision by the First Tier Property Tribunal, in which it was found that fixing defects to the exterior of Centre Point House, a relevant building constructed in the 1960s, fell within its repair obligations.

The Upper Tribunal decided:

• The leaseholder protections contained in the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) which protect qualifying leaseholders from paying service charge for fixing unsafe cladding may apply even where a “relevant defect” is not present.
• For the purposes of the BSA, the meaning of “cladding” is not limited merely to combustible cladding products affixed to the outside of a building, and could apply to a range of systems and materials. Similarly, the meaning of “unsafe” is not constrained to fire safety concerns.
• The limitation period of 30 years prior to the coming into force of the BSA does not apply to leaseholder protections in the BSA in respect of unsafe cladding remediation.

Almacantar was therefore required to pay for remediating the building’s exterior, and could not reclaim the costs of doing so from qualifying leaseholders.

The decision is subject to a further appeal by Almacantar is due to be heard in 2026.

Key Impacts

• The decision potentially broadens the range of defects for which landlords may be liable related to residential properties with qualifying leases.
• Extra caution should be taken by investors when acquiring residential buildings containing units subject to qualifying leases, as they may find themselves on the hook for remediation of defects, even where such defects arise from works carried out more than 30 years ago.

Further case details are available here.

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a comprehensive statement of the law. Specific legal advice should always be sought in relation to individual circumstances.

Meet the team:

1. 

   • Philip Matthews

   • Partner
   • Real Estate Development

   Visit Philip's profile

View the whole team