Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited & Ors v Grey GR Limited Partnership

Section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 permits the First-tier Tribunal to make remediation contribution orders against multiple respondents on a joint and several basis where that is just and equitable. The just and equitable inquiry is separate from the statutory gateway conditions and is deliberately broad and fact-sensitive. Direct participation in the development or receipt of its profits is not a necessary condition. Association, together with evidence of a wider corporate structure and other linking factors, may justify collective liability. A building safety risk under section 120(5) is not confined to an intolerable, significant or above-low risk. The relevant risk must nevertheless satisfy all statutory conditions, including being a risk to people’s safety arising from fire spread or collapse and caused by a relevant defect.

The appeals concerned remediation contribution orders made by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 in respect of Vista Tower, Stevenage. The FTT ordered 76 respondents to pay £13,262,119.08 on a joint and several basis. The respondents challenged the FTT’s jurisdiction to impose that form of liability, its approach to the just and equitable test, its construction of building safety risk, and its inclusion of costs relating to the replacement of a wall.

The Upper Tribunal considered whether section 124 permitted joint and several liability, whether the FTT had erred in assessing the respondents’ association and evidence, whether a risk had to be intolerable, and whether the FTT’s factual conclusions concerning the remedial works disclosed an error of law.

1. Jurisdiction. Section 124, read with section 6(c) of the Interpretation Act 1978, permits the FTT to make a remediation contribution order against two or more respondents on a joint and several basis. The singular reference to a specified body corporate or partnership does not reveal a contrary statutory intention. The flexible nature and purpose of section 124 support that construction. Without it, the jurisdiction could be frustrated by apportionment gaps and respondent insolvency. [123]-[167]
2. Just and equitable test. The FTT must first determine the statutory gateway conditions and then separately decide whether an order against each respondent is just and equitable. The applicant bears the initial burden of putting forward its case. The applicant must prove matters relied upon in support of the order, while respondents must prove matters on which they rely against it. There is no general requirement for direct participation in the development or direct or indirect receipt of development profits. [175]-[183]; [215]-[224]
3. The FTT was entitled, on the evidence, to find that the relevant companies formed part of a fluid and interconnected wider corporate structure. Association alone was insufficient, but the additional linking factors, opaque records and unsatisfactory evidence justified treating the relevant respondents collectively. The FTT was entitled to conclude that joint and several liability was the just and equitable outcome in this case. [199]-[227]
4. Building safety risk. Section 120(5) refers to any risk, subject to the statutory requirements. It does not impose an additional threshold such as intolerable, significant or above-low risk. The risk must be to people’s safety in or about the building, arise from the spread of fire or collapse, and be caused by a relevant defect. The FTT was wrong to impose an above-low-risk threshold, but Ground 3 failed because the appeal on the relevant costs was academic. [231]-[255]
5. Remedial costs and appellate review. The FTT was entitled to rely on the professional advice recommending removal of combustible insulation and to take account of time pressure, uncertainty, regulatory requirements and the wider evidence. An appellate tribunal hearing an appeal on a point of law must not re-try factual questions or interfere merely because it might have reached a different conclusion. No material error of law was established. [256]-[311]
6. The appeals were dismissed. The postscript emphasised that joint and several liability is not automatic whenever multiple respondents satisfy the gateway conditions; the FTT must consider the appropriate outcome for each respondent, which may be apportioned liability or no liability.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Appeals against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision dated 24 January 2025 were dismissed. The FTT’s remediation contribution orders were upheld, subject to the Upper Tribunal’s guidance on the meaning of building safety risk. [312]-[316]