Hallings Wharf Studios, central Government secures its first remediation contribution order

Building safety case note

This case note concerns 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, a First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) matter about who should bear the cost of remediation at Hallings Wharf Studios and whether the Secretary of State was entitled to recover £ 3,682,997.78 by way of a remediation contribution order under the Building Safety Act 2022.

Parties and procedural setting

• Applicant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
• Respondents: EDR Builders Ltd and Hollybrook (UK) Ltd.
• Tribunal: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
• Reported procedural setting: application for a remediation contribution order under the Building Safety Act 2022.

The matter is reported as the first remediation contribution order obtained on an application by central Government.

Key issues

• Whether the tribunal should make a remediation contribution order under the Building Safety Act 2022.
• Whether the claimed remediation sum of £ 3,682,997.78 should be recoverable.
• How the tribunal dealt with the argument that the works could have been carried out more cheaply, described in the reporting as the alternative scheme argument.
• How the tribunal dealt with the recoverability of litigation costs.

Applicant’s position and legal arguments

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.

Respondents’ position and legal arguments

The reporting available in the folder does not preserve a full pleaded defence from either respondent. What it does 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 reporting also records 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.

Tribunal’s findings

The tribunal made a remediation contribution order in the sum of £ 3,682,997.78. The reporting available in the folder says the tribunal gave guidance on recoverability where a respondent argues the works could have been carried out more cheaply.

The reporting also says the tribunal dealt with the recoverability of litigation costs. The preserved sources do not contain the tribunal’s exact wording on either point, so the safe conclusion is that the tribunal addressed both issues as part of the same decision.

The reporting further records 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.

Tribunal’s decision

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.

Key takeaways

• Central Government has now reportedly secured its first remediation contribution order under the Building Safety Act 2022.
• A respondent’s argument that the works could have been completed more cheaply does not prevent the tribunal from examining recoverability and fixing a substantial award.
• Litigation-cost recovery is capable of becoming part of the same dispute over the overall financial consequence of remediation.
• Where the defect position is effectively conceded, the real contest may shift to responsibility, quantum and recoverable heads of claim.

Summary bullet points

• The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government was the applicant. EDR Builders Ltd and Hollybrook (UK) Ltd were the respondents.
• The Secretary of State’s position was that the respondents should be ordered to contribute £ 3,682,997.78 towards remediation under the Building Safety Act 2022.
• The respondents’ position, so far as preserved in the reporting available in the folder, included an argument that the works could have been done more cheaply and a challenge on recoverability, including litigation costs.
• The tribunal made the remediation contribution order in the amount of £3,682,997.78 and dealt with both the alternative scheme argument and litigation-cost recoverability.
• The Secretary of State succeeded in obtaining the remediation contribution order, but not its litigation costs. The decision is reported as the first remediation contribution order obtained on an application by central Government.