Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership & Anr

[2025] EWCA Civ 846

We discussed this case in Issue 284. Triathlon brought the proceedings in respect of five residential blocks at the former athletes’ village for the London 2012 Olympics at Stratford, now known as East Village. In November 2020, serious fire safety defects were discovered, relating both to the design and the construction of the various cladding systems adopted for the external facades. A programme of work to permanently remedy the defects at East Village by removing and replacing the exterior cladding was implemented. The total cost of the work was said to exceed £24.5 million. Triathlon sought, through section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”), a Remediation Contribution Order (“RCO”) of some £18 million towards the remediation costs from SVDP, the developer, and its parent company. These costs represented Triathlon’s share of the total and included historic costs that had been paid. The First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) agreed that Triathlon was entitled to the RCOs it had sought.

The CA unanimously dismissed the appeals against the RCO noting the “thorough and careful” decision of the FTT. The CA agreed that it was “just and equitable” for the FTT to have granted the RCO. Nugee LJ noted that the point the FTT were making: “was that the policy of the Act was to place primary responsibility on the developer”. The FTT had also said that public funding was: “a matter of last resort and should not be seen as a primary source of funding where other parties, within the scope of section 124, are available as sources of funding”. Nugee LJ again said that the FTT were “justified” in saying this.

Nugee LJ did note that it would not necessarily always be just and equitable to make RCOs. The appellate judge referred to the situation where a director of a landlord was also a director of other companies which have no other connection with the landlord or its group. Here, such companies might have had nothing to do with the development and be engaged in entirely different businesses or might include a charitable company to which the director had given their time voluntarily.

The CA also confirmed that section 124 of the BSA had retrospective effect. This means that RCOs can be made in respect of remedial costs incurred before the commencement of the BSA. This will potentially provide an avenue for leaseholders/management companies to recover costs they may otherwise not have been able to recover and puts greater accountability on landlords and developers.

Back to the previous page

Click to download PDF