The Court has provided guidance on the scope of the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”) in a recent Technology and Construction Court decision, HB (WM) Ltd v STO Ltd & Others [2026] EWHC 1833 (TCC).
While the judgment itself did not determine the parties’ liability, it further established the reach of the BSA, displaying the court’s willingness to allow claims against foreign manufacturers and associated group companies to proceed where building safety defects are alleged.
The background
The claim was brought by a number of major developers, including Redrow, Lendlease and Barratt Developments, which have collectively incurred around £90 million in cladding remediation costs.
The developers are seeking to recover those costs from companies involved in the manufacture and supply of the cladding system.
The defendants included:
- Sto Ltd (“Sto”), the Scottish company that manufactured the system;
- Sto SE & Co KGaA (“Sto Germany”), a German company that supplied components used within the system; and
- Stotmeister Beteiligungs GmbH (“SBG”), Sto Germany’s parent company.
The developers brought contribution claims under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, arguing that the defendants should share responsibility for the remediation costs. The developers relied on provisions within the BSA, including the new rights of action relating to defective cladding products (section 149) and the court’s power to make associated companies liable through Building Liability Orders (“BLOs”) (section 130).
The German defendants sought to challenge the claim on jurisdictional grounds and argued that it had little prospect of success, seeking to set aside service. The court rejected those arguments and allowed the claims to continue.
Key takeaways from the judgment
1. Claims against cladding manufacturers may be wider than previously thought
This is one of the first decisions to consider the cladding products provisions (sections 149) of the BSA.
The court found that the developers had a realistic prospect of establishing liability against a manufacturer involved in the design, manufacture, specification, marketing or promotion of the cladding system.
For manufacturers and suppliers, this suggests that the court may be willing to take a broad approach when considering potential liability under the BSA.
2. Developers may have greater opportunities to recover remediation costs
The decision makes clear that parties who have funded building safety remediation works may be able to pursue contribution claims against others who are potentially responsible for those defects and confirms that a contribution claim can be brought even before the claimant’s own liability has been finally established and even where the original claimants are not parties to the proceedings.
In practical terms, this widens the recovery options available to developers and others who have already incurred the cost of remediation works.
3. Overseas companies may still be caught by the BSA
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is the court’s indication that BLOs can, in principle, be made against overseas companies.
The court recognised that the construction products market operates internationally and suggested that Parliament was unlikely to have intended the BSA to apply only to UK-based businesses.
As a result, overseas parent companies and other group entities may face exposure where they are sufficiently connected to a company within the statutory definition of an associated company.
Looking ahead
The decision reinforces the increasingly claimant-friendly approach being adopted by the courts in building safety disputes. The decision continues the trend of courts interpreting the BSA in a manner consistent with its underlying purpose of ensuring that those responsible for historic building safety defects contribute towards remediation costs.
A notable theme running throughout the judgment was the court’s recognition that the BSA remains a developing area of law, providing a clear indication of the court’s willingness to give claimants the opportunity to test novel claims under the BSA, particularly where issues of building safety and remediation are concerned. As a result, businesses can expect further litigation as the courts continue to define the boundaries of these provisions.
The message is clear: the courts are prepared to interpret the BSA broadly in support of holding those responsible for historic building safety defects to account.
Speak to our team
For more information on this topic, or to speak with our specialist construction team, please send an enquiry or call 0800 652 8025.
Posted:
