An overview of recent developments
Anyone working within the construction sector will broadly be familiar with the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) by now, which was introduced in response to the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy.
We set out below an overview of the current landscape concerning building safety and highlight several important cases heard in recent years.
Higher-risk buildings are currently defined as buildings at least 18 metres in height or comprising 7 or more storeys and containing a minimum of two residential units. This definition acts as a trigger point to many enhanced safety obligations under the BSA. The aim being to protect residents in buildings where the consequences of fire or structural failure could be most severe. Though the BSA excludes certain types of buildings such as care homes, hospitals, hotels, secure residential institutions (for example, prisons), and military barracks, as these types of buildings are largely regulated under separate fire safety legislation and frameworks.
The 2024 Grenfell Inquiry Phase 2 Report criticised the current definition of ‘higher-risk’ buildings, stating that the use of height alone was not a satisfactory measure of risk. As of 30 September, we understand the Building Safety Regulator is continuing to consider the definition and aims to publish its findings by the end of 2025.
Ultimately, the Government continues to face significant challenges in ensuring the remediation of unsafe residential buildings. The Remediation Acceleration Plan (RAP), published in December 2024 (and updated in July 2025), outlines recent progress and introduces new measures aimed at expediting the process, with a pledge that every residential building over 18 metres included in a Government-funded scheme will be fully remediated by the end of 2029.
But what has happened to those buildings falling outside of the higher-risk definition? As of July 2025, 5,214 residential buildings had been measured at 11 metres and over (i.e. mid-rise buildings), identified as containing unsafe cladding. Of these, 1,780 have undergone remediation works. The Government have, as part of RAP, also committed to identifying and fixing all mid-rise buildings with unsafe cladding by the end of 2029; or to at least have a date for completion, otherwise the buildings’ landlords may risk being liable for penalties.
Section 1 of the DPA broadly imposes a duty on those who build or renovate dwellings to ensure work is done in a professional manner, with proper materials, so that the property is fit for habitation. The BSA significantly extended the limitation periods in which claims under the DPA can be brought:
This extension opened the door to claims previously considered time-barred, particularly in relation to historic fire safety and structural defects, reflecting the BSA’s aim to improve accountability.
Of particular note in the last two years:
The BSA also introduced various tools and remedies, providing interested parties the ability to obtain certain information and a means of redress for the rectification of unsafe buildings falling within the ambit of the BSA.
Under Section 130 of the BSA, the Courts may extend liability from one company to another associated company on a joint and several basis, even where the original development company has been dissolved.
To obtain a BLO, a claimant must establish:
The High Court in 381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Ltd & Ors v Click St Andrews Ltd & Anr [2024] EWHC 3179 (TCC) granted the first-ever BLO. Click St Andrews Ltd, was found to be a thinly capitalised SPV company, reliant on inter-group loans and created solely to acquire, develop, and divest the property. Although the Court found no breach under the DPA, it was satisfied that the defects posed a building safety risk. The Court emphasised the BSA’s purpose; preventing well-resourced parent companies from avoiding liability through undercapitalised subsidiaries. The judgment confirmed that leaseholders are not required to exhaust contractual guarantees before seeking a BLO.
Under Section 132 of the BSA, an information order may be made by the High Court. It can be applied for by any person making or intending to make an application for a BLO. The order may be made if it appears to the Court that the body corporate is subject to a ‘relevant liability’ and that the information is required. The term relevant liability means a liability that is incurred under the Defective Premises Act 1972, under section 38 of the Building Act 1984, or as a result of a building safety risk.
In BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 434 (TCC) the Court held that information orders made under section 132 of the BSA could not extend to associated companies (i.e. the order can only be made against the corporate body that “is subject to a relevant liability”), even if they were likely to possess relevant documents. The Court found that it was impossible to square the wording of section 132 with the Explanatory Notes accompanying the BSA. While Explanatory Notes are admissible guidance as to the interpretation of legislation, what ultimately matters is the interpretation of the legislation itself.
Sections 123 and 124 of the BSA, provide interested persons the ability to apply to the first-tier tribunal (FTT) (a tribunal that handles applications, appeals and references relating to disputes over property and land) for a RO or RCO, as the case may require.
Remediation Orders (RO) and Remediation Contribution Orders (RCO) are legal tools designed to ensure that those responsible for building safety defects are held accountable, both practically and financially. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 amended the process by which an interested person can seek an RO or RCO. We explore these remedies and the amended process in further detail in our insight here Building Safety – Amendments to the Remediation Order and Remediation Contribution Order process – Michelmores.
Such orders were introduced to ensure that essential remediation works are carried out where landlords fail to fulfil their legal obligations regarding building safety.
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership & Get Living PLC [2025] EWCA Civ 846 clarified and expanded on the scope of these orders, reinforcing their role in protecting leaseholders and residents – see our insight here Building safety update – Remediation contribution order – Michelmores. Stratford Village and Get Living have, however, lodged an application with the Supreme Court on 28 August 2025 for permission to appeal the decision on the basis: the Court of Appeal took the wrong approach as to whether it was ‘just and equitable’ to make an RCO under section 124 of the BSA; and that it was wrong to conclude an order could be made in respect of costs incurred before that provision came into force. We continue to watch this space.
Responsibility for remediating construction defects is largely governed by a ‘cost recovery waterfall’ designed to protect leaseholders and ensure that those responsible for defects are held accountable. There are, of course, rules and nuances relating to a party’s ability to pursue any particular claim that will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
This ‘waterfall’ can broadly be broken down into:
The BSA continues to reshape the legal landscape for building safety and accountability. Recent case law confirms the courts’ willingness to extend liability to developers, landlords, and associated entities, even retrospectively. Tools like RCOs, ROs, and BLOs are being used more frequently, placing pressure on landlords and developers to act swiftly and transparently. This in turn is leading to claims against the original contractor and/or the professional team.
All parties involved in the construction of buildings captured under the BSA should remain alert to the growing scope of liability and ensure that robust investigation and remediation strategies are in place.
Should you have any queries or need assistance with any building safety matters, please do not hesitate to contact Ashley Pigott (Partner) and Andrew Pratten in Michelmores’ specialist Construction and Engineering team.
