Rydon Group Holdings has failed in a High Court challenge to a decision to designate it as unfit to undertake cladding work on three London tower blocks.
The firm applied to the court for permission to judicially review a decision by the secretary of state in February 2024 to bar Rydon from taking on remediation work from the Building Safety Fund on the Cable Street buildings — despite its pledge to start the work imminently.
But Mr Justice Choudhury dismissed the claim on the grounds that the decisions were taken under a commercial contract rather than statutory powers, meaning that only limited public law grounds applied — and none were made out.
“The contractual context of this claim means that judicial review is limited to a claim on the grounds of fraud, corruption or bad faith, none of which applies here,” he said.
“Even if that is wrong, the claim fails on the merits as none of the grounds for seeking judicial review are made out.”
Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017, new powers were given to the secretary of state to designate developers who are deemed “unfit”.
Rydon Group Holdings is the parent company of Rydon Maintenance, which was the main refurbishment contractor on Grenfell and came in for heavy criticism in the inquiry’s final report last September.
The inquiry concluded that Rydon Maintenance bore “considerable responsibility for the fire”.
However, Rydon’s barrister John Litton KC told the judge that, despite the inquiry’s findings, it was “irrational” of the secretary of state not to investigate whether it was now fit to undertake the work.
“Essentially, submits Mr Litton, the defendant’s approach has led to a situation whereby the ‘sins of Rydon Maintenance’ are being visited on other Rydon group companies despite those having a positive track record of remediation in respect of other buildings,” the judge said.
The court heard that Rydon attributed the objections from residents and the deputy mayor of London as the reason it was blocked from the work and accused the secretary of state of making a predetermined decision with the “improper motive of punishing Rydon or making an example of it”.
But the judge concluded: “The inference that the claimant seeks to draw is based largely on its incredulity that it could be designated as unfit when it was actively remediating other buildings.
“The claimant’s assessment of that issue is based on an unduly narrow understanding of the notion of fitness.”
The court heard Rydon also complained that it was not given the chance to “respond specifically to certain matters raised by third parties including as to the lack of trust”.
However, the judge added: “Given the history of the matter, including the evidence and submissions during Phase 1 of the inquiry, the sorts of issues raised… ought to have been obvious.
“The deputy mayor, for instance, highlights Rydon’s exclusion from the Help to Buy Scheme — an exclusion that Rydon did not consider commercially worthwhile challenging at the time.”
Earlier this year, the government announced that leading manufacturers and contractors in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower would be investigated for a complete debarment and be banned from winning public contracts.
It named Rydon as one of the firms.
However, it put this process on hold in July to prevent any impact on criminal investigations taking place.
Read More
Nicola Harley