Court of Appeal Confirms Wide Scope of Remediation Contribution Orders Under Building Safety Act 2022 – Triathlon Homes v Stratford Village 2025

Court of Appeal confirms broad scope of Remediation Contribution Orders under the Building Safety Act 2022: Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership and others [2025] EWCA Civ 846

This is the first Court of Appeal judgment clarifying the discretionary power of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (“FTT”) to order Remediation Contribution Orders (RCOs). 

Background 

The case concerns fire safety defects in five residential blocks within the East Village Estate in Stratford, East London. Originally constructed as part of the Athletes’ Village for the 2012 London Olympic Games, these blocks were later converted into permanent housing. The development was undertaken by Stratford Village Development Partnership (SVDP), initially established and owned by the Olympic Delivery Authority. Triathlon Homes LLP, the long leaseholder of the social housing in these blocks, applied for RCOs against SVDP, the developer, and Get Living plc, the current owner of SVDP. 

FTT granted the orders, requiring both entities to contribute substantial sums towards the costs of remedying fire safety defects. These included costs incurred both before and after s.124 Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) came into force. Section 124 allows the FTT to require developers, landlords, and their associates to contribute to the cost of remedying relevant defects if it is “just and equitable” to do so. 

SVDP and Get Living appealed, challenging both the Tribunal’s interpretation of the “just and equitable” test and the inclusion of pre-commencement remediation costs within the scope of an RCO.

Key takeaways 

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Key takeaways include as follows:

• Primary responsibility on developer and associated companies: The Court confirmed BSA’s policy to place primary responsibility for remediation costs on developers and their associates. It is irrelevant whether the associated company was involved in the original works or acquired the developer later.
• Public funding is a last resort: The fact that the Building Safety Fund had already covered the remedial works did not weigh against granting an RCO. The Fund is a “last resort”, and there is a strong public interest in ensuring it is reimbursed promptly. Recipients of funding are contractually obliged to pursue recovery from third parties.
• Applicant’s motive irrelevant: Provided the statutory criteria are met and there is no malice or bad faith, the identity or motive of the applicant does not affect the FTT’s discretion.
• No requirement to exhaust other remedies: The RCO regime is designed to provide early access to funding, without requiring leaseholders or management companies to first pursue contractual or tortious claims against a wrongdoer.
• Retrospective costs: The Court confirmed that RCOs can cover costs incurred before section 124 came into force (28 June 2022), not only for permanent work but also interim safety measures. This ensures leaseholders and management companies are not left without recourse for historic remediation costs. The “just and equitable” test acts as a safeguard against unfairness. The retrospective principle was reinforced by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in URS Corporation v BDW Trading. 

Just and equitable test

The Court reinforced the principle that the burden of remediation should not fall on leaseholders or public funds. The FTT has wide-ranging powers to hold developers and their associates financially accountable—even for historic costs—where it is just and equitable to do so. The same principles are likely to apply to those seeking Building Liability Orders (BLOs) in the High Court.

While the Court confirmed that the primary responsibility sits with the developer, it cautioned against interpreting this as a presumption that it will always be just and equitable for an RCO to be granted against the developer and associates with means to pay.  The FTT, in the Court’s view, had expressed themselves more widely than was needed in the present case. 

The Court cited an example of where a director of a landlord was also a director of other companies who were engaged in unrelated business activities, or a charitable organisation to which the director had given his time voluntarily. In such cases, it may not be just and equitable to grant an RCO on the associated companies even if public funds would otherwise bear the costs. The relevant considerations may involve the degree and duration of the links between the companies. Crucially, the granting of an RCO does not imply fault or wrongdoing on the company.

Practical considerations 

The impact of the decision is far reaching on the future ownership of companies. 

1. Purchasers assume legacy liabilities: Prospective purchasers of a company must accept the risks of inheriting the company’s liabilities which may be unknown or unforeseen at the time of purchase. While arguments may be made that factors such as culpability, the degree of connection between the developer/associate and the wrongdoer, or the absence of profit from the development, should be taken into consideration; these are not determinative. The “just and equitable” test remains flexible and context-dependent. 
2. Director appointments may create associate liability: Where a director of a developer company takes up a directorship in any other company (eg Company X), they are potentially putting Company X at risk of being deemed an “associate” under the BSA and thus exposed to potential liability of a RCO or BLO. Whilst the Court acknowledged that the “just and equitable” test allows for a more nuanced approach, the risk profile for such companies remains uncertain pending further judicial guidance.