GS Woodland Court GP 1 Limited & Anor v RGCM Limited & Ors

On an application to adjourn a trial, the governing question is whether proceeding would be fair in all the circumstances. The assessment is fact-sensitive and does not involve the mechanistic application of a fixed checklist.

For remedial works to a higher-risk building, the fact that a proposed scheme has been rejected by the Building Safety Regulator may materially affect case management. It may be unfair to determine quantum on a pleaded scheme which cannot lawfully be implemented and no longer represents the claimant’s credible likely loss. That does not establish a general rule requiring every trial to await regulatory approval.

Where liability issues are ready for determination, a split trial may be appropriate if preserving the existing trial date is, overall, the least imperfect and fairest course.

The claimants sought an adjournment of a June 2026 trial concerning alleged fire-safety defects in a student-accommodation development. The claim included substantial damages for a proposed mitigation remedial scheme. The development was a higher-risk building, and the scheme required approval under the Building (Higher Risk Procedures) Regulations 2023.

The Building Safety Regulator rejected the scheme before trial. The claimants argued that they could not fairly proceed on the existing quantum case. The defendants opposed a general adjournment, while some supported determining liability separately. The central questions were whether the rejection made a full or partial adjournment necessary and whether a split trial would be fair, proportionate and efficient.

1. Adjournment principles. The overriding objective and the guidance in Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd required consideration of conduct and delay, whether the consequences could be overcome before trial, the risk to a fair trial, matters affecting the trial, and the consequences for the parties and the court. The assessment was governed by fairness in all the circumstances, consistently with Bilta UK Limited v Tradition Financial Services Limited, and was not a mechanistic checklist.
2. The prospective uncertainty inherent in assessing remedial damages would ordinarily not justify postponing a trial. However, the rejection of the proposed scheme was a material new fact. While it remained rejected, the claimants could not lawfully implement it. Proceeding on the existing quantum case risked determining loss without evidence of the claimant’s true likely loss and would produce an asymmetrical trial. The regulatory status of a scheme was therefore relevant to case management, although it did not create a principle that every remediation trial must await a regulator’s decision.
3. Approval by the Building Safety Regulator would not determine factual questions for the court, including whether works were caused by defects, whether the scheme was over-designed, or whether a cheaper solution was required by the claimant’s duty to mitigate. An approved scheme would not necessarily be reasonable in every sense.
4. An adjournment of some part of the proceedings was necessary. The claimants were not at fault for the purposes of the application, and the immediate difficulties could not sensibly be cured before trial. The defendants’ prejudice from delay and increased costs did not outweigh the prejudice of requiring the claimants to advance an uncredible quantum case.
5. The whole trial was not adjourned. Applying the pragmatic considerations discussed in Electrical Waste Recycling Group Ltd v Philips Electronics UK Ltd and Jinxin Inc v Aser Media Pte Limited & Ors, issues concerning duties, breach, defects and attribution of defects to breaches were sufficiently ready for determination. The June 2026 hearing was retained for liability issues, with quantum and related contribution issues to be dealt with in a second phase. The application to adjourn the entirety of the proceedings was refused.

No appeal history was stated. The judgment records procedural directions given by Waksman J at an earlier case management conference.