Key takeaways on recent changes in Building Safety Law
The sessions delivered by Nicholas Grundy KC, Stephen Evans and Sonia Rai included an overview of Part 5 of the Act; pros and cons of leaseholder protections currently in force; consideration of “relevant building”, “relevant defect”, “qualifying lease” and “building safety risk”; an analysis of Schedule 8 protections Remediations orders and limitation issues; plus a review of the recent TCC cladding case (Martlett Homes Ltd v Mullaly & Co [2022] EWHC 1813 (TCC)
The key takeaways are as follows:
Changes to limitation periods
The Act now extends the limitation period for prospective claims brought under sections 1 and 2A of the DPA from 6 years to 15 years from the date of practical completion (including latent defects at the time of completion). For retrospective claims, the limitation period is now 30 years, before the Act coming into force, for claims accrued under section 1.
Contribution Orders
An interested person under the Act can make an application for a Contribution Order in relation to a relevant building. Following such an application, a first-tier tribunal can order that a “specified body corporate” must meet the costs incurred or to be incurred to remedy relevant defects. Specified body corporates include landlords (whether existing or qualified at the time), developers in relation to the relevant building and “persons associated” with a person within any of the three preceding categories. Those in a company that may not have been directly involved with previous developments of the “higher-risk” buildings may now be liable for future and historical development projects.
Recent Case Law
The seminar took us through the recent case of Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley and Co Ltd20. Whilst this case does not concern the Act directly, it emphasises the Court’s willingness post-Grenfell to allow building owners to pursue claims against contractors in circumstances where combustible cladding materials are installed.
