Grenfell: Remedying Defects And Establishing Change

• Published date: 21 December 2020
• Subject Matter: Real Estate and Construction, Construction & Planning, Real Estate, Landlord & Tenant - Leases
• Law Firm: Fenwick Elliott LLP
• Author: Mr Jeremy Glover

There have been two recent cases which have discussed cladding flammability issues. Stuart Duffy explains the significance of these with reference to details of the Government's apparent plans to address some of the many issues which came to light following the Grenfell tragedy.

It has been more than three years since the fire at Grenfell Tower, which claimed 72 lives and exposed serious failings across the whole system of building and managing high-rise homes.¹ As is commonly known, it was the cladding at Grenfell which was vital to the spread of the fire. There have been two recent cases relating to cladding flammability issues which highlight some of the construction issues that surround the Grenfell tragedy.

Sportcity 4 Management Limited and others v Countryside Properties (UK) Limited [2020] EWHC 1591 (TCC)

In this case, Countryside Properties (UK) Limited (the "Defendant") made an application for summary judgment and/or striking out the claim brought by Sportcity 4 Management Limited and others (the "Claimants"). The substantive claim related to cladding issues at a development comprising 350 apartments (the "Property"). It was alleged that the remediation work would cost over '15 million, which is a reminder of just how high the costs of "post-Grenfell cladding remediation work" can reach.

In late 2013, agents managing the Property on behalf of the Claimants asserted that there were problems with the cladding at the Property. The Defendant attended the Property in 2014 to undertake some additional works and attended the Property again in August 2017.

The Claimants set out three causes of action in their particulars of claim: (1) a claim under the leases relating to the Property, (2) a claim under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (the "DPA") and (3) a claim that the Defendant breached a duty of care in tort. The Defendant denied that it owed a duty or breached such a duty in respect of the leases and DPA claims. Furthermore, the Defendant accepted that it owed a duty of care in tort, but denied any breach of that duty.

The main thrust of the Claimants' case under the leases was that, on a proper construction of the terms, the Defendant was the landlord and, as such, became liable under a number of covenants expressed in the leases. In summary, the Judge did not consider that the Defendant was the landlord and did not consider that it made the covenants in question. This claim was dismissed.

The claim under the DPA was based on alleged failings in the original construction works. The Defendant alleged that the Claimants were statute-barred from...