Building Safety Act 2022: Liability for Remediation Contribution Orders & application of the “just & equitable” test
The Upper Tribunal considers an application for a Remediation Contribution Order (RCO) under s.124 Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA 2022”), discussing joint and several liability and the application of the “just and equitable” test when assessing whether to make an RCO.
The background
Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited and others v Grey GR Limited Partnership [2026] concerned Vista Tower, a building constructed in the 1960s for use as offices which was bought by Edgewater in 2014 and converted into a residential block of 73 flats across 16 storeys, sold to leaseholders on long leases. The freehold reversion was acquired by Grey GR in 2018.
Serious defects leading to fire safety risks were identified in the building following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, including the presence of combustible materials used in the external wall cladding and inadequate fire stopping measures. Major remedial works were required, and Grey GR was served with a Remediation Order.
Grey GR applied to the First-tier Tribunal for an RCO against Edgewater and 76 of its associated and connected companies. The RCO was granted in the sum of £13,2262,119.08, and all respondents were declared jointly and severally liable. The respondents appealed on four grounds:
- Whether the FTT had jurisdiction to issue the RCO and to declare joint and several liability;
- Interpretation of the “just and equitable” test;
- Definition of a “Building Safety Risk”; and
- The reasonableness of the remedial costs.
The decision
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, finding that the FTT had the necessary jurisdiction to make an RCO and to declare joint and several liability against the appellant and its associated entities where it was just and equitable to do so. Respondents did not need to have been a party to the construction of the development, or to gain financially from it, in order to carry such liability.
Whether the FTT had jurisdiction to issue the RCO and to declare joint and several liability
Edgewater argued that the wording “a specified body corporate or partnership” contained at s.124(2) BSA 2022 referred to a singular corporate entity rather than multiple organisations. This was rejected by the UT, which applied the Interpretation Act 1978 to find that references to the singular should also include the plural.
The UT stressed the Parliamentary intention behind s.124 and the purpose of an RCO, finding that if the FTT was unable to make an RCO against multiple parties on a joint and several basis where it was just and equitable to do so, that contradicted the purpose of the statute which was to fund essential remedial works.
Interpretation of the “just and equitable” test
An RCO may be made by the FTT if it is “just and equitable” to do so under s.124 (1) BSA 2022. The UT referenced the decision in Triathlon Homes LLP v. Stratford Village Development Partnership & Anor [2025], finding that the FTT should decide each application on a case-by-case basis with a broad interpretation of what is “just and equitable”.
Respondents do not need to have benefited from the development financially, or to have participated in its construction in any way, to be found jointly and severally liable under an RCO where they can be shown to be a corporate entity that is associated with the contractor. In this case, Edgewater and its 76 associated entities could not adequately evidence their group structure or independence in decision-making such that it was just and equitable for the FTT to make them jointly and severally liable under the RCO.
Definition of a “Building Safety Risk”
Under s.120(2)(b) and s.124(2) BSA 2022, an RCO may be made in relation to the remediation of relevant defects which give rise to a building safety risk.
The BSA 2022 does not qualify further the definition of “risk”, and does not apply any minimum or other thresholds to its application. If a relevant defect creates a risk of any level of severity, the RCO may be made.
The reasonableness of the remedial costs
Edgewater included in its appeal to the UT a review of the reasonableness of the costs included within the RCO, arguing that some costs, such as those to remove combustible insulation, were disproportionate.
Although the stated works could be considered disproportionate on a technical basis, the works were required to be undertaken urgently by Grey GR in order to improve building safety and reduce risk to residents. These were relevant factors which the FTT was entitled to consider, and therefore the costs stated were found to be reasonable.
Advice and action for landlords
This has been a landmark case in the field of building safety, and the Upper Tribunal’s decision is of importance to landlords and freeholders seeking RCOs from lead contractors.
RCOs may be made against a broad number of associated and connected corporate entities. In this case, the RCO was made against 76 associated companies, out of a total of 96 entities initially included in the proceedings, and all respondents were made jointly and severally liable for a sum of over £13.2m.
No apportionment was made between entities, and entities did not need to have been involved, or have benefited from, the development to remain liable. The group structure in this case was unclear, and independence was not evidenced sufficiently for any of the 76 entities to successfully remove itself from the RCO.
Developers, contractors and their associated companies should be acutely aware of this decision, ensuring clarity in corporate structures where necessary in order to limit exposure where possible. It is clear from this decision, plus others concerning the BSA 2022, that the courts are giving considerable weight to Parliamentary intention, notably that building safety defects must be remedied and adequately funded by those responsible for their design and construction.
