Court Rulings Tighten Building Safety Liability for Parent Companies
Published on 07/29/2026 at 17:07 | Redaktion boerse-global.de
Recent High Court decisions have established that parent companies can be held financially responsible for building safety failures by their subsidiaries, creating new legal risks for corporate groups under the Building Safety Act 2022.
Landmark Precedents on Building Liability Orders
In Crest Nicholson v Ardmore, the Technology and Construction Court granted Building Liability Orders (BLOs) against group companies for fire safety defects at a Portsmouth residential development. The court ruled that an adjudicator's decision awarding £14.9 million against an insolvent subsidiary could constitute a relevant liability under the Act.
The judgment provided the first detailed analysis of the "just and equitable" test for BLOs. The court found the orders appropriate given the subsidiary's insolvency and the group's corporate structure, confirming it can grant anticipatory BLOs even before a final liability determination is reached.
With building safety liabilities now extending up the corporate chain, having your fire risk documentation in order has never been more critical. A free Fire Safety Toolkit provides a complete package including risk assessment templates, evacuation plans, and fire extinguisher training materials to help you meet current UK regulations. Download the free Fire Safety Toolkit
In a separate case, Mulalley v Sto Ltd, the court issued a BLO against German parent company Sto Germany for 87.5% of £1.8 million in cladding remediation costs. The order followed the UK subsidiary entering administration.
Meanwhile, in Essendi v London Property Co, a landlord was ordered to replace dangerous ACM cladding on a hotel under a lease repair covenant — despite the building not falling under the specific protections of the Building Safety Act 2022.
Social Housing Regulator Flags Serious Failings
The Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) published 18 regulatory judgments on July 29, 2026, identifying significant shortcomings across the sector. Aves Housing was found to have misrepresented its not-for-profit status and overcharged for services.
YMCA Thames Gateway was cited for lacking up-to-date home condition data and failing to demonstrate compliance with legal health and safety requirements. The regulator noted a sharp deterioration in the organisation's liquidity.
Building Control Overhaul Recommended
An Independent Panel report led by Dame Judith Hackitt has recommended a fundamental restructuring of building control. The proposals call for fewer, larger, and independent building control bodies under stronger national oversight, supported by a digital backbone with standardised data for industry-wide interoperability. The government has reportedly accepted the recommendations.
Key Deadlines Approaching
Several regulatory milestones are imminent:
- August 17, 2026: Applications open for the Cladding Safety Scheme, providing government funding for remediation on buildings under 11 metres.
- September 30, 2026: New residential buildings over 18 metres must include a second staircase.
- October 1, 2026: The Building Safety Levy takes effect, requiring developers to provide levy liability information at the time of submission.
Bat Protection Breach Results in Fine
Environmental enforcement also featured in recent legal action. On July 27, 2026, City Building (Glasgow) was fined £17,000 at Dumfries Sheriff Court for breaching animal conservation laws.
Staying compliant across all your health and safety obligations means having the right documentation ready at all times. A free Health & Safety Toolkit offers ready-to-use risk assessments, checklists, and toolbox talks covering key UK regulations including the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and COSHH. Download the free Health & Safety Toolkit
During solar panel and cladding installation at a sheltered housing bungalow, the company blocked a bat roost entrance, killing approximately 150 Soprano Pipistrelle bats. A tenant was hospitalised with bite wounds. The court heard the company had failed to conduct a required bat survey before starting work.
Disclaimer regarding our articles: No investment advice, no buy or sell recommendation. Information on prices, companies, and markets is provided without guarantee; changes are possible at any time. Stock market transactions can lead to substantial losses. Our articles are created and reviewed in whole or in part automatically with the support of AI.
