Building Safety: Vista tower appeal dismissed: Key guidance on remediation contributions orders

The Upper-tier Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has handed down its decision in the Vista Tower dispute Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited and Others v Grey GR Limited Partnership [2026] UKUT 18 (LC).

This decision relates to the appeal against a set of remediation contributions orders made by the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber (FTT) on 24 January 2025, pursuant to Section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022. The Remediation Contributions Orders (the RCO) related to a building known as Vista Tower, Southgate, Stevenage (the Property). 

The decision provides significant guidance on the interpretation of the Building Safety Act 2022 (the Act) and in particular Remediation Contribution Orders. 

Background

The Property, which was built in the early 1960s and originally used as office space, was purchased by Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited in 2014 and converted into residential flats. During 2016 and 2017, the flats were sold on long leases.  Grey GR Limited Partnership (Grey) purchased the freehold interest in 2018. The Property is 49.5 metres high, with 16 storeys and contains 73 flats.

Post Grenfell investigations uncovered serious fire safety defects, including combustible external wall materials and inadequate fire stopping. Grey applied to the FTT for a Remediation Contribution Order against 96 respondents, under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022. The FTT granted the RCO against 76 respondents, ordering that they pay Grey the total sum of £13,262,119.08 on a joint and several basis.

The respondents appealed to the Upper-tier Tribunal. 

Grounds of Appeal and the Upper Tribunal Decision 

The Upper-tier Tribunal considered four grounds of appeal:

Ground 1:  Whether the FTT had jurisdiction to make respondents jointly and severally liable for the same total sum

The appellants argued that:

• Section 124 of the Act refers to liability for “a specified body corporate or partnership” (singular), meaning the FTT could not impose joint and several liability on multiple respondents.
• Alternatively, if the FTT had such a power, it should only have required each respondent to pay a fixed, separate share of the total sum. 

Held: Ground 1 was rejected. The Upper-tier Tribunal concluded that the FTT does have the power to make joint and several RCOs where it is just and equitable to do so.

The Upper-tier Tribunal confirmed that, under established principles of statutory interpretation, the singular can include the plural unless the legislation indicates otherwise. Nothing in Section 124 suggests such a limitation. Accordingly, reference to “a specified body” can include multiple bodies, and Section 124 therefore permits joint and several liability. 

The Upper-tier Tribunal also reiterated that Section 124 is deliberately flexible and allows the FTT to decide who should pay, how much, and on what basis, based on what is just and equitable. Limiting the FTT to apportioned, non overlapping liabilities would mean Section 124 could not work as it was intended to work and would frustrate the statutory purpose. 

Ground 2: Whether the FTT wrongly imposed liability without proving each respondent participated in or benefited from the development

The appellants argued that the FTT had:

• adopted an incorrect approach to the “just and equitable” test, extending liability too broadly;
• eroded the principle of separate corporate identity far beyond what the Act permits;
• incorrectly treated mere “association” as grounds for liability; and 
• wrongly shifted the burden of proof onto the appellants.

Held: Ground 2 was rejected. 

The Upper Tribunal held that the “just and equitable” test does not require a minimum level of involvement. The test is very wide and association within the developer’s corporate structure can be sufficient. The FTT was entitled to find joint responsibility where companies did not operate as separate, neat entities but as a single blurred network controlled by the same individuals. 

The Upper-tier Tribunal concluded that the FTT did not reverse the burden of proof. Respondents will be expected to provide evidence clearly explaining the nature and extent of their relationship, and the FTT was entitled to draw negative conclusions from the companies’ confusing or incomplete evidence.

Ground 3: Whether a “building safety risk” must be an “intolerable risk” rather than any risk

The appellants argued that a building safety risk under Section 120 should only include intolerable risks, not any risk above “low.”

Although the Upper Tribunal noted this ground was academic, they agreed to give guidance after hearing submissions from both sides.

Held: Ground 3 was rejected. 

The Upper Tribunal held that Section 120 defines a building safety risk as “a risk”, with no qualifying threshold such as “significant,” “intolerable,” or “above low.” 

The correct interpretation of a “risk” means any risk, provided the statutory conditions are met. The FTT correctly rejected the “intolerable” threshold, but it incorrectly imposed its own threshold (“any risk above low”). This supports the decision at FTT level in the case of Canary Riverside Estate (see Lauren Michaelides blog)

Ground 4: Whether it was wrong to include the full costs of replacing the Type 1 external wall system

The appellants argued that:

• the remedial scheme was unnecessarily expensive; 
• the FTT wrongly concluded that it was just and equitable to include the costs of replacing the Type 1 Wall in its entirety where (i) a cheaper alternative was available and (ii) the experts agreed that removal was not proportionate from a purely technical perspective.
  Held: Ground four was also rejected. The Upper-tier Tribunal held that this was a factual matter and the appeal courts rarely interfere with findings of fact (unless unsupported by evidence). The Upper-tier Tribunal concluded that the FTT asked the correct legal question and its decision was both explained and grounded in the evidence which was before it.

Key takeaways

The Upper-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal in full, confirming:

• The FTT acted within its powers, and joint and several liability is permissible; 
• The “just and equitable” test is deliberately broad; 
• The statutory meaning of "risk" means any risk, it did not require any particular level or threshold of risk to be met; and 
• The costs of the remediation scheme was reasonable

Our content explained