Stratford Village Development Partnership and another (Appellants) v Triathlon Homes LLP and another (Respondents)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0156

Parties

Appellant(s)

Stratford Village Development Partnership and Get Living PLC

Respondent(s)

Triathlon Homes LLP

East Village Management Limited

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government

Issue

(1) Did the Court of Appeal take the wrong approach to whether it was ‘just and equitable’ to make a remediation contribution order under s124 Building Safety Act 2022? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to conclude that a remediation contribution order under s124 Building Safety Act 2022 can be made in respect of costs incurred before that provision came into force on 28 June 2022?

Facts

This appeal concerns the question of who should pay for the cost of remediating fire safety defects in the external walls of five residential blocks of flats in the East Village Estate in Stratford, East London. The first appellant, Stratford Village Development Partnership (“SVDP”) was the original developer of the blocks. The second appellant, Get Living PLC (“GL”) has in effect been the owner of SVDP since 2018. Two of GL’s wholly-owned subsidiaries are property holding companies, which together hold the freehold of the blocks on trust for SVDP. The blocks are managed by the second respondent, East Village Management Ltd (“EVML”). In November 2016, EVML was granted a 1,000 year headlease of the blocks. The blocks contain a mix of social housing and market housing. The social housing is held (via long leases with EVML as the landlord) by the first respondent, Triathlon Homes LLP (“Triathlon”). Triathlon is a social housing provider. The market housing is held (via 125 year sub-leases from EV N26 LTD, which in turn holds a 999 year lease from EVML) by GL. GL has let the market housing units on assured shorthold tenancies at market rents. Following the Grenfell Tower fire (which took place on 14 June 2017), EVML reviewed the cladding materials used in the blocks. Serious fire safety defects were discovered in the blocks. EVML has contractual responsibilities for remedying the defects. As part of the response to fire safety concerns in the wake of Grenfell, the government established a Building Safety Fund. In Greater London, the Fund is administered by the Greater London Authority. Following an application by EVML, it was confirmed that the Fund would cover the costs of the major remediation works to the blocks. Those works involved removing and replacing the exterior cladding. A contract for the work was entered into in December 2022, and the work started in April 2023. A Grant Funding Agreement was entered into between the Secretary of State (the Intervener in this appeal), the GLA and EVML on 1 June 2023. The Agreement provided that the Intervener would provide funding for the major remediation works to the blocks. By Clause 4.3.1(d) of the Grant Funding Agreement, EVML agreed not to claim the costs of any of the work from “any Leaseholder.” On 28 June 2022, the Building Safety Act 2022 came into force. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the Act prevents EVML from recovering the costs of the remediation works via service charges imposed on leaseholders. Section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 empowers the First-Tier Tribunal to make ‘remediation contribution orders.’ These are orders which require a specified body to contribute to the costs of remedying fire safety defects. Section 124 establishes a series of conditions which must be satisfied if such an order is to be made. Section 124 also provides that the First-Tier Tribunal may make the order if it considers it “just and equitable” to do so. In December 2022, Triathlon applied for remediation contribution orders to be made against SVDP and GL. The purpose of the application was to require SVDP and GL to pay Triathlon’s share of the remediation costs, and to enable Triathlon to recover other costs it had incurred as a result of the defects (for example, the cost of the original investigation, a temporary waking watch system, and the installation of a temporary fire alarm system). The First-Tier Tribunal found that the conditions set out in s124 were satisfied, and that it was just and equitable to make the order. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision. SVDP and GL now ask the Supreme Court to overturn that decision. They argue that the First-Tier Tribunal adopted the wrong approach to the question of whether it was just and equitable to make the contribution orders in the circumstances of Triathlon’s application, and that orders under s124 cannot be made in respect of costs which were incurred before that provision came into force.