The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has heard appeals against remediation contribution orders made under the Building Safety Act 2022 for Vista Tower in Stevenage, affecting the appellants and the applicant for the orders.
Key facts
- Who: The appellants listed in the decision (Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited and others), against whom the orders were made, and Grey GR Limited Partnership, the applicant for the orders
- From: 27 January 2026
- Source: Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited & Ors v Grey GR Limited Partnership [2026] UKUT 18 (LC)
Background
In [2026] UKUT 18 (LC), decided on 27 January 2026, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) considered three appeals against remediation contribution orders. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) made the orders on 24 January 2025 under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022. The orders were set out in a single document and related to Vista Tower, Southgate, Stevenage.
Grey GR Limited Partnership applied for the orders on 25 April 2023. Further respondents were added to the application later. The First-tier Tribunal heard it over ten days between 4 and 15 November 2024. It took evidence from witnesses of fact and from experts in fire safety, architecture and quantum.
A separate remediation order required Grey to carry out specified works to the building by 9 September 2025. Grey has also begun High Court (Technology and Construction Court) proceedings against three of the respondents for a building liability order under section 130. Those proceedings had not come to trial.
The questions on appeal
The appeals were heard on 16 and 17 October 2025 by the President of the Upper Tribunal, Mr Justice Edwin Johnson. Several groups of appellants were separately represented. The issues were:
- whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to make the order on a joint and several basis;
- whether it was just and equitable to make the order;
- the meaning of "building safety risk"; and
- whether certain costs were reasonable.
The First-tier Tribunal's approach
The Upper Tribunal set out how the First-tier Tribunal had dealt with two points of interpretation. On "defect", the First-tier Tribunal held that non-compliance with the Building Regulations 2010 was one way, but not the only way, in which something could be a defect under the Act. That finding was not challenged on appeal.
On "building safety risk" in section 120(5), the First-tier Tribunal rejected an argument that a "tolerable" medium risk is not a building safety risk. It said any risk above "low" may qualify. Its reason was that section 120(5) describes a risk to the safety of people from the spread of fire or collapse, not a risk reaching an intolerable threshold. That interpretation is in issue in the appeal.
The appeal also covered remedial work to what the decision calls the Type 1 Wall. That work involved removing combustible foam insulation injected into the wall. The experts agreed that, from a purely technical perspective, the work was not proportionate. The First-tier Tribunal nevertheless found that other factors justified it. It noted that residents had lived in unsafe conditions throughout earlier attempts to reduce the scope and cost of the works.
What this means for those involved in remediation contribution proceedings
In this case, a First-tier Tribunal remediation contribution order was appealed to the Upper Tribunal. The grounds included:
- the jurisdiction to make the order on a joint and several basis;
- whether the order was just and equitable;
- the meaning of "building safety risk"; and
- whether certain costs were reasonable.
Anyone involved in a similar application should get advice before any deadline passes and may wish to read the full decision.
Sources
- Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited & Ors v Grey GR Limited Partnership [2026] UKUT 18 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 27 January 2026