{"id":892248,"date":"2026-03-18T02:08:25","date_gmt":"2026-03-18T07:08:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2026\/03\/18\/unpicking-a-landmark-shift-in-building-safety-accountability\/"},"modified":"2026-03-18T02:08:25","modified_gmt":"2026-03-18T07:08:25","slug":"unpicking-a-landmark-shift-in-building-safety-accountability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2026\/03\/18\/unpicking-a-landmark-shift-in-building-safety-accountability\/","title":{"rendered":"Unpicking a landmark shift in building safety accountability"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Elizabeth Weeks is a partner specialising in dispute resolution at Rosenblatt Law<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

Those following the interpretation and implementation of the 2022 Building Safety Act (BSA) will note the Supreme Court\u2019s grant of permission to appeal in <\/span>Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership <\/span><\/i>(SVDP)<\/span>.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

To recap, the Supreme Court granted permission for SVDP to appeal, in part, the determination as to whether a remediation contribution order (RCO) under section 124 of the BSA can apply to costs incurred before the provision came into force on 28 June 2022.\u2028\u2028<\/span><\/p>\n

An RCO requires a specified body to contribute to the costs of remedying fire-safety defects. Section 124 sets out the statutory criteria, while giving the court discretion to make an order where it considers it \u201cjust and equitable\u201d to do so.<\/span><\/p>\n

SVDP \u2013 now owned by Get Living \u2013 developed five blocks at East Village, Stratford, constructed for the 2012 Olympics. Triathlon Homes LLP holds long leases for the social and affordable housing; East Village Management Ltd (EVML), the headlease holder and estate manager, procured the remediation works.<\/span><\/p>\n

Following the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, EVML reviewed the cladding materials used in constructing the Olympic blocks and discovered serious defects. Although EVML carried contractual responsibility for the remediation, Triathlon applied for the RCOs, seeking to require SVDP and Get Living to pay Triathlon\u2019s share of the remediation costs. EVML separately secured public funding for the cladding work from the Building Safety Fund (BSF).<\/span><\/p>\n

Consequently, SVDP and Get Living were ordered to pay some \u00a318m to EVML. Their appeal challenged whether the First-tier Tribunal had correctly applied the \u201cjust and equitable\u201d test, and whether RCOs could operate retrospectively by capturing costs incurred before the relevant BSA provisions commenced.<\/span><\/p>\n

For developers, the discretion under section 124 requires only that an RCO be \u201cjust and equitable\u201d and that they undertook or commissioned the building\u2019s construction.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

While the Court of Appeal discussed a possible \u201chierarchy of responsibility\u201d and the part played by public funding, section 124 remains the starting point for liability.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The court also upheld the extension of potential liability to \u201cassociates\u201d, in line with the BSA\u2019s broader policy aims. Section 121 sets out the test \u2013 one which Get Living met in this case.<\/span><\/p>\n

Some practical and commercial considerations follow:<\/span><\/p>\n