UK Upper Tribunal upholds remediation contribution order against developer and associated entities

The Upper Tribunal’s landmark decision in Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited and Others v Grey GR Limited Partnership [2026] confirms that remediation contribution orders (RCOs) continue to develop as an effective tool to look behind corporate structures in order to impose joint and several liability across a network of associated companies.

This is the latest in a stream of significant cases throughout 2025 (since the first case in 2024) concerning the granting of RCOs under section 124 of the Building Safey Act (BSA) 2022. A RCO is a remedy for interested parties in relevant buildings to require a company to make payments in connection with the remediation of relevant defects. They continue to be increasingly viewed as a cheaper and quicker alternative to other, more traditional remedies through the courts.

Dispute background

The case concerned Vista Tower, a 16-storey residential conversion in Stevenage. A remediation order (RO) was issued against the freeholder, Grey GR Limited Partnership, requiring Grey to remediate defects in the external walls by 9 September 2025. On 24 January, the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) granted an RCO against original developer, Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited, and 76 corporate entities associated with the developer resulting in each entity being held joint and severally liable for the a total cost, which is expected to be in excess of £13 million.

The developer and 76 respondents appealed the decision, challenging the FTT's jurisdiction on four key grounds:

• Ability to impose joint and several liability under section 124 BSA.
• The "just and equitable" test and associated entities.
• The meaning of "building safety risk".
• The inclusion of allegedly disproportionate remediation costs.

The Upper Tribunal dismissed all four grounds of appeal.

Section 124: joint and several liability 

The appellants argued that section 124 required the FTT to make separate orders against individual “specified” bodies for fixed amounts, rather than imposing joint and several liability for the full sum.

The Upper Tribunal rejected this argument. Reading section 124 alongside section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978, it held that the singular reference to “a specified body corporate or partnership” includes the plural. There is no requirement for the BSA to expressly to refer to joint and several liability. The tribunal considered that requiring fixed apportionment would undermine the statutory purpose by leaving applicants exposed to a “colander” effect where insolvency in one respondent creates a permanent shortfall even though other associated companies in the same group have resources.

The 'just and equitable' test 

The appellants contended that the FTT had misapplied the “just and equitable” test, arguing that liability should depend on participation in, or profit from, the development.

The Upper Tribunal disagreed, ruling that direct participation in or profit from a development is not a requirement for liability. Drawing on Triathlon Homes, the Upper Tribunal highlighted that a scenario where there is a thinly capitalised developer and a wealthy parent company is a "classic case for the making of a remediation contribution order against both parties". Where a group operates as a "fluid, disorganised and blurred network" of interdependencies, the tribunal is entitled to examine the economic reality of that structure when determining whether it is just and equitable to make an order.

Turning to the evidential burden in these cases, the Upper Tribunal confirmed that this is shared – the applicant bears the initial burden of proving that an order is just and equitable and respondent(s) must prove why such an order would not be just and equitable. Where associated entities do not give a transparent account of their structure, funding and decision-making, adverse inferences may be drawn when exercising the court's discretion.

The meaning of 'building safety risk'

The Upper Tribunal rejected any threshold of risk (such as only “intolerable” risks or risks “above low”) and confirmed that any risk to the safety of people arising from fire spread or structural collapse can qualify, even where experts assess that risk as “low”. A recent example of this can be found in the FTT decision of Canary Riverside Estate, where a RCO was indeed granted in relation to risks categorised as "low". In other words, the focus is on whether the defect creates a real risk to occupants in the statutory sense, not on how that risk is labelled in PAS 9980 (the British Standards Institution code for reducing the risk of fire via external walls and cladding) or similar frameworks. The degree of risk then feeds into different questions including whether remediation is proportionate, and whether it is just and equitable to make a RO or RCO and include particular costs.  

Allegedly disproportionate remediation costs

The appellants challenged the inclusion of the full cost of replacing a particular wall type on the basis that experts agreed those works were technically disproportionate when compared with cheaper alternatives.

The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT’s approach. The question was not whether the chosen scheme was the least expensive option but whether the landlord’s decision fell within a reasonable range of responses in light of the professional advice obtained and the circumstances at the time. Where remediation decisions are supported by competent expert evidence and taken under legitimate time and safety pressures, the tribunal may allow recovery of the associated costs.

Osborne Clarke comment

This decision signals a further transformative shift in the liability landscape under the BSA, effectively prioritising the recovery of remediation costs over the established principle of the "corporate veil". For developers and investors, the most immediate takeaway is the establishment of a zero-tolerance threshold for building safety risks. The courts have confirmed that a building safety risk encompasses any risk to safety, however small, arising from fire spread or structural collapse. PAS 9980 labels such as “tolerable” or “low” will not guarantee exemption from exposure to these orders.

The ruling clarifies that an entity does not need to have directly participated in or profited from a development to be held responsible for its remediation. Building on Triathlon Homes, the Upper Tribunal held that the “just and equitable” test can extend liability across a whole group where, in reality, the business has been run through a “fluid, disorganised and blurred” network of companies. In that situation, associated entities are expected to give a clear, coherent explanation of how the group is structured and funded; if they do not, the tribunal can draw adverse inferences from opaque or incomplete records and may treat the group as one economic unit.

Kystal Wachira, a trainee at Osborne Clarke, assisted in writing this Insight.