Hallings Wharf Studios Case Navigator©:
The matter is reported as the first remediation contribution order obtained on an application by central Government.
Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government v EDR Builders Ltd and Hollybrook (UK) Ltd (Hallings Wharf Studios), LON/00BB/BSB/2024/0011
Hallings Wharf Studios, central Government secures its first remediation contribution order
The dispute was about who should bear the cost of remediation at Hallings Wharf Studios and whether the Secretary of State could recover 3,682,997.78 pounds by way of a remediation contribution order under the Building Safety Act 2022. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) made the order sought, and the case is reported as the first such order obtained on an application by central Government. Click any node to open it. The story runs in order, from the parties to the practical lessons.
| Tribunal | First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) |
| Applicant | Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government |
| Respondents | EDR Builders Ltd and Hollybrook (UK) Ltd |
| Procedural setting | Application for a remediation contribution order under the Building Safety Act 2022 |
| Order made | £3,682,997.78 |
| Importance | Reported as the first remediation contribution order obtained on an application by central Government |
This case note concerns an application for a remediation contribution order under the Building Safety Act 2022. The Secretary of State sought an order against EDR Builders Ltd and Hollybrook (UK) Ltd in relation to Hallings Wharf Studios.
The tribunal made the remediation contribution order in the sum of £3,682,997.78. The available reports say this was the first such order obtained on an application by central Government, and that the tribunal addressed both the alternative scheme argument and the recoverability of litigation costs, while not awarding litigation costs to the Secretary of State.
The reported decision shows that major disputes under the Building Safety Act 2022 may turn on who pays, what sum is recoverable and how the tribunal deals with arguments that the remedial works could have been done more cheaply.
| Applicant | Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government |
| Respondents | EDR Builders Ltd and Hollybrook (UK) Ltd |
| Tribunal | First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) |
| Procedural setting | Application for a remediation contribution order under the Building Safety Act 2022 |
The case was Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government v EDR Builders Ltd and Hollybrook (UK) Ltd (Hallings Wharf Studios), LON/00BB/BSB/2024/0011.
The Secretary of State sought to make EDR Builders Ltd and Hollybrook (UK) Ltd bear the cost of remediation at Hallings Wharf Studios. The tribunal made a remediation contribution order under the Building Safety Act 2022 in the sum of £3,682,997.78, and the available reports say this was the first remediation contribution order obtained on an application by central Government.
| Order | Whether the tribunal should make a remediation contribution order under the Building Safety Act 2022 |
| Quantum | Whether the sum of £3,682,997.78 should be recoverable |
| Alternative scheme | How the tribunal dealt with the argument that the works could have been carried out more cheaply |
| Litigation costs | How the tribunal dealt with the recoverability of litigation costs |
The Secretary of State's position was that a remediation contribution order should be made against the respondents. The application sought recovery of £3,682,997.78 under the statutory regime.
The reported case note also records that the defect position was effectively conceded by reference to Edgewater (Stevenage) Ltd v Grey GR Limited Partnership [2026] UKUT 18 (LC). On that footing, the live dispute appears to have centred on financial responsibility for remediation rather than on whether the defects fell within the statutory scheme.
The available reports do not preserve a full pleaded defence from either respondent. What they do preserve is that the tribunal dealt with an argument that the remedial works could have been carried out more cheaply, described as the alternative scheme argument.
The same reports also record that the tribunal dealt with the recoverability of litigation costs. That indicates the respondents challenged at least part of the amount claimed and the scope of sums recoverable on the application.
The tribunal made a remediation contribution order in the sum of £3,682,997.78. The available reports say the tribunal gave guidance on recoverability where a respondent argues the works could have been carried out more cheaply.
The available reports say the tribunal dealt with the argument that the remedial works could have been carried out more cheaply. The preserved sources do not contain the tribunal's exact wording on that point.
The reports also say the tribunal dealt with the recoverability of litigation costs. The preserved sources do not contain the tribunal's exact wording on that point either.
The reports further record that the relevant defects were effectively conceded by reference to Edgewater. That suggests the tribunal was dealing with responsibility for payment and recoverable sums on the footing that the defect issue was no longer the central contest.
On the available reports, the dispute had moved from defect existence to financial consequence. That is where the reported arguments on alternative schemes and litigation costs sit.
The tribunal made a remediation contribution order in the amount of £3,682,997.78, but not for the Secretary of State's litigation costs.
The practical result was that the Secretary of State succeeded in obtaining what is reported to be the first remediation contribution order secured by central Government, but did not recover litigation costs.
The Secretary of State substantially won. The tribunal made the remediation contribution order in the sum of £3,682,997.78 against the respondents, but not for litigation costs.
| Lesson | What to do |
|---|---|
| Central Government can obtain an RCO | The available reports describe Hallings Wharf as the first remediation contribution order obtained on an application by central Government. |
| Cheaper alternative arguments matter | A respondent may argue that remedial works could have been carried out more cheaply, but the tribunal can still address recoverability and make a substantial order. |
| Costs can become part of the main dispute | Litigation-cost recoverability may be argued alongside the principal remediation sum rather than treated as an afterthought. |
| The contest may shift to quantum | Where defects are effectively conceded, the main fight may move to responsibility, quantum and recoverable heads of claim. |
Apply To Become An ECCCS/ECCDA/ECCCA/ECCCM