In Wallace Estates Ltd v Durkan Estates Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 2133 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) and the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (“FTT”) delivered a significant procedural judgment concerning the management of parallel disputes under the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”). Notably, this was the first joint hearing conducted by a TCC judge and the President of the FTT (Lands Chamber).
The underlying dispute concerns remedial works at Centrillion Point, Croydon. Under a remediation agreement, Durkan agreed to remedy relevant defects at its own cost. Following disagreements regarding the progress of the works, Wallace purported to terminate the agreement and assumed responsibility for completing the remedial works. Wallace subsequently applied to the FTT for a Remediation Contribution Order (“RCO”) in the sum of approximately £13.6 million. Meanwhile, Durkan commenced proceedings in the TCC, challenging the validity of the termination and seeking declaratory relief and damages against Wallace.
The key issue before the court was not liability for the defects, but rather the management of the overlapping TCC and FTT proceedings. The parties ultimately agreed that the claims should proceed together. The joint panel endorsed that approach, finding that the proceedings involved substantially the same facts, witnesses, expert evidence and underlying remediation issues. Joint case management would reduce duplication, avoid inconsistent findings and generate significant costs savings.
The judgment is significant because it provides the first practical guidance on the coordinated management of parallel BSA proceedings before the TCC and the FTT. The court expressly endorsed the approach reflected in the 2026 TCC Guide, which encourages early judicial consideration of related proceedings concerning the same building.
Under the directions made, the proceedings will be subject to a single disclosure exercise, a single set of witness statements and common expert evidence. The substantive hearing will be heard by both a TCC judge and an FTT judge, with findings of fact binding across both proceedings.
Why it matters
For developers, building owners and others involved in remediation disputes, the decision signals a more integrated approach to BSA litigation. Where parallel claims are brought before the TCC and the FTT, parties can expect the courts to consider coordinated case management at an early stage.
The judgment should reduce the costs and inefficiencies associated with conducting separate proceedings arising from the same building defects. It also demonstrates increasing cooperation between the TCC and the FTT in addressing the complex mix of contractual, remedial and statutory issues arising under the BSA.
Importantly, however, the court declined to determine whether the FTT itself has jurisdiction to decide issues concerning the lawfulness of contractual termination when considering an RCO. That jurisdictional question remains unresolved and is likely to be tested in future cases.
As such, the decision is notable less for its substantive outcome than for establishing a procedural roadmap for future multi-forum building safety litigation.