When “just and equitable” gets expensive: RCOS after Vista Tower

Think you are too far removed to pay for building safety defects? Think again.

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has dismissed an appeal against an early remediation contribution order (“RCO”) made under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 in Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited and Others v Grey GR Limited Partnership [2026] UKUT 18 (LC). The judgment provides important clarification on the powers of the First‑tier Tribunal (“FTT”) when making RCOs, particularly in relation to joint and several liability, the application of the “just and equitable” test, and the meaning of “building safety risk”.

Background

The appeal arose from an RCO made by the FTT in respect of Vista Tower, a high-rise residential building. The FTT ordered a number of respondents to make contributions towards the cost of remedying fire safety defects and imposed liability on a joint and several basis.

The appellants challenged the decision on four grounds. In broad terms, they argued that the Building Safety Act does not permit joint and several liability, that liability could not properly be imposed on respondents who had not participated in the development or received profits, that the FTT had applied too low a threshold for establishing a building safety risk, and that the scope of works included in the order was not just and equitable.

The Upper Tribunal rejected all four grounds of appeal.

Joint and several liability

A central issue was whether section 124 permits the FTT to make a single RCO against more than one respondent on a joint and several basis. The appellants contended that the statutory language required separate orders or some form of apportionment.

The Upper Tribunal disagreed, holding that section 124 confers a broad discretionary power on the FTT. References to a “specified body corporate or partnership” are capable of including the plural, and there is nothing in the wording of the Act that prevents the imposition of joint and several liability.

The Tribunal emphasised that joint and several liability is not automatic. The FTT must still consider whether such an order is just and equitable in the circumstances of the particular case. However, the power to make such an order plainly exists.

The “just and equitable” test

The appellants also argued that it could not be just and equitable to impose liability on respondents who had not themselves carried out works on the building or received profits from the development.

The Upper Tribunal rejected this submission. Section 124 does not impose any minimum requirement of participation, ownership or financial benefit. Parliament chose to frame the test in broad terms, leaving it to the tribunal to assess what is just and equitable on the facts.

The Tribunal confirmed that the FTT is entitled to take into account the wider factual and corporate context in which the development was carried out. Where a development has been undertaken through a group or structure of associated entities, the absence of direct involvement by a particular respondent does not preclude an RCO being made against it.

Meaning of “building safety risk”

A further ground of appeal concerned the definition of “building safety risk” under section 120(5) of the Act. The appellants contended that only risks above a certain level of seriousness should qualify.

The Upper Tribunal rejected that approach. The statutory language refers simply to “a risk” to the safety of people arising from fire or structural failure. There is no basis for introducing gradations or thresholds not found in the Act. The Tribunal held that the words mean what they say: any such risk is sufficient, provided the other statutory conditions are met.

Key takeaways from the decision

• Group companies can be liable – A remediation contribution order can be made against companies that did not carry out the works, own the building or receive profits. Being part of a wider corporate structure connected to the development may be sufficient where it is just and equitable.
• Joint and several liability means full exposure, not a “share” – Any one respondent can be required to pay the full cost of remediation. The tribunal is not required to apportion liability between respondents.
• No “minimum risk” threshold for building safety issues – Any risk to safety arising from fire or structural failure can qualify, without the need for seriousness or gradation.
• Early risk assessment is critical - For developers, contractors and sub‑contractors, the decision underlines the importance of early assessment of building safety exposure across entire corporate groups, not just the entity that signed the building contract or sold the asset.

For more related insights, see our Building and Fire Safety Hub.