Building safety – a year in review
Thursday 8th January 2026
Another year passes, and building safety legislation continues to evolve in scope and complexity.
In 2025, we saw the Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 laid before parliament, which charge responsible persons with the duty of preparing “Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans” for vulnerable tenants.
The Ministry of Housing also updated its Remediation Acceleration Plan in July 2025, which hinted at a “Remediation Bill” being brought forward when parliamentary time allows. In general, the aims of the bill are to:
- Speed up the pace of remediating unsafe cladding in high-risk buildings;
- Create more certainty on which buildings need remediating and who is responsible;
- Clarifying obligations on responsible persons; and
- Giving more power to residential tenants when landlords have neglected their responsibilities.
On the litigation side, we have seen some notable cases go to trial, which have provided some valuable insight into how we interpret and apply the complex web of building safety legislation. Some highlights appear below:
January
Grey GR Limited Partnership v Edgewater (Stevenage) Ltd and Others
This case considered the meaning of ‘defect’ and ‘building safety risk’ under the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”) and when it is just and equitable for the First Tier Tribunal to make an order requiring a specific person or entity (e.g. a landlord or developer) to contribute to the costs of remedying a relevant defect (a “Remediation Contribution Order”).
Key takeaways:
- A defect is not limited to works that do not comply with the Building Regulations at the time of the building’s construction. In this case, the relevant regulations were the Building Regulations 2010, which were found to be unfit for purpose in a report by Dame Judith Hackett. Non-compliance with regulations is one of many ways that something can be a “defect”, indicating that the Tribunal will take a holistic approach to considering what is and is not a “defect”.
- Any risk of fire beyond “the ordinary unavoidable fire risks in residential buildings” is enough to constitute a building safety risk.
- The claimant was a well-funded and well-advised property investor, but these factors were not taken into account when applying the “just and equitable” test. In this instance, the test was met in part because the respondents falsely warranted they had complied with Building Regulations and did not disclose serious fire safety warnings during the sale.
- In limited circumstances, the Tribunal can include “disproportionate costs” in a contribution order (to be assessed on a case-by-case basis), though they will first consider the reasonableness of these costs in the circumstances.
May
URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd
This case considered whether a structural engineer can owe a duty of care to the main developer under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (“DPA”). This is particularly relevant, as the BSA extended the limitation period for claims made under the DPA.
Key takeaways:
- Prior case law has not established a principle that would make “voluntarily incurred” damages (i.e. damages that the injured party agreed to take) out of scope for the DPA. In this case, BDW was not acting voluntarily, due to the legal liability and reputational damage it could suffer from the defective work.
- 135 of the BSA, which extends the limitation period for claims under the DPA, can also apply to actions “dependant” on the DPA such as a claim for negligence or a contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.
- The duty under the DPA can be owed by a builder/architect/engineer to a developer, and not just to the building owner. This is because the duty is owed to a person who has “ordered the dwelling to be built”, which can be interpreted as a lead developer sub-contracting parts of the development work.
July
This is another case that considers the “just and equitable” test for Remediation Contribution Orders. Along with Adriatic Land (discussed below), it addresses how the BSA applies to any works undertaken before it came into force.
Key takeaways:
- Remediation Contribution Orders can be made against costs incurred before the act came into force. The Tribunal adopted a policy-focused approach to the legislation, concluding that retrospective application of the BSA was necessary to protect leaseholders against historic fire safety defects.
- When the Tribunal considers who should fund remediation works, the Building Safety Fund (and now the Cladding Safety Scheme) is to be treated as a last resort. The public purse should not be required to fund works where a party connected to the defective building (e.g. the landlord or developer) could afford to do so.
On 6 November 2025, Stratford Village Development was granted permission to appeal solely on the point regarding retrospectivity. The appeal will consider whether the Court of Appeal were wrong to conclude that Remediation Contribution Orders could be made for costs incurred before the relevant section of the BSA came into force.
This case considers the retrospectivity of the BSA – specifically, whether the leaseholder protections against service charges in the BSA apply to any works completed before 28 June 2022.
Key takeaways:
- It was held by majority, with one judge dissenting, that the leaseholder protections will apply to any service charges incurred on or before 28 June 2022. Therefore, landlords of relevant buildings will not be able to recover any service charge sums due on or before 28 June 2022 if the lease qualifies for the protections under the Act.
- As with Triathlon Homes, the Tribunal took a policy-focused approach towards the legislation. In this instance, making the protections apply retrospectively was in-keeping with the BSA’s general aim of protecting leaseholders against large (and often unaffordable) service charges.
As with Triathlon Homes, permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment concerning retrospectivity was granted on 1 September 2025.
September
Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No.1 Ltd and another company v De Valk and others
This case considered the scope of the protections granted to qualifying leaseholders by the BSA, particularly those related to the removal and replacement of cladding.
Key takeaways:
- The BSA’s general provisions concerning “relevant defects” should be interpreted separately from the protections exclusive to qualifying leaseholders. The leaseholder protections are much broader in scope and will cover the removal of “unsafe” cladding that forms the outer wall of an external wall.
- As to the meaning of “unsafe”, the Tribunal used the word’s ordinary meaning and interpreted this as “any serious risk to safety”, not just risks of fire or related to relevant defects. In this instance, the protections applied to works to a timber façade, which would render the existing façade non-structural.
- The Tribunal decided that limiting the protections to went against the BSA’s intention to protect leaseholders from the costs of replacing unsafe cladding.
Developments in 2026
This year, we may hear more about the prospective Remediation Bill (discussed above), if parliamentary time allows.
Additionally, on 1 October 2026, the “Building Safety Levy” will come into effect, introducing a tax on certain developments that create or increase “residential floor space”. The government aims to raise £3.4 billion over approximately 10 years to fund the remediation of unsafe buildings.
Building safety legislation and case law are rapidly evolving, primarily due to the impact of the Grenfell Tower fire.
If you would like more information on the upcoming changes to building safety legislation or have any other queries, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our property disputes team.
