Mulalley v Sto: A landmark case in terms of the recovery of losses from the product supplier arising from cladding defects
We take a look at the recent important landmark case Mulalley v Sto which confirms that product selection is a design responsibility, not an administrative one. Evidence does not replace judgement.
Designers must assess evidence and decide whether a product is appropriate for the building.
The recent case of Mullalley -v- Sto1 is a case that was brought against a product supplier under the current routes of redress. We analyse the decision in brief below.
Case analysis
Main contractors and developers alike may be interested to know there is now a trodden path for recovery of losses arising out of defective cladding (and perhaps related) products under the Building Safety Act.
The Court has determined the amount a Claimant design and build contractor (Mullaley & Co. Limited) is entitled to following an earlier default judgment on liability for damages.
The TCC held in a judgment handed down this week that Sto Ltd (the cladding supplier) was 87.5% responsible for the defective cladding on a high rise building in Essex built by the Claimant contractor.
The Court made Sto (the product supplier) subject to a Building Liability Order (BLO) under section 130 of the Building Safety Act 2022, and the Claimant sought a contribution in respect of Sto’s UK subsidiary’s liability for defective cladding products, brought under section 149 of the BSA in respect of which it was also successful.
The key takeaways from this recent decision are:
- the Court has for the first time had to assess the respective ‘just and equitable’ contribution for a cladding supplier under a design and build contract
- the Court held that the cladding product supplier was 87.5% responsible for the cladding issues on the property because it failed to supply a product that complied with the functional requirement B4(1) and regulation 7 of the Building Regulations (as in force at the relevant time)
- Sto was found to have made misleading statements about its StoTherm Classic product or system, a product/system that was inherently defective
- the defective nature of the product was the cause of the apartments in the property (tower block) being uninhabitable
- while the case is an important landmark in terms of the recovery of losses from the product supplier arising from cladding defects, as a note of caution Sto did not actively participate in the case. There is therefore little in the way of background facts or analysis of the facts.
To find out more about this landmark case visit: www.hilldickinson.com/our-view/articles/building-safety-act-case-update-product-claims-in-focus/
Talking about the case Jonathan Stewart, Architect and Director at Cowan Architects, explained that the bigger lesson is not about manufacturers. It is that product selection is a design decision, not an administrative one.
Jonathan said: “The judge made it clear that a BBA certificate is not a guarantee of compliance; it is evidence, nothing more. The same applies to a manufacturer’s details or a commonly used system. None of these replaces project-specific design judgement.
“The current regulatory direction only sharpens that responsibility. Guidance from the Building Safety Regulator states that designers must be satisfied that a design, if built, complies with all relevant requirements. They must also consider how their design interacts with other design work, and must provide sufficient information about the design, construction and maintenance of the building.”
He continued by saying: “Principal Designers have an additional duty to plan, manage, monitor, and coordinate design work, while taking reasonable steps to ensure that all designers comply with their statutory responsibilities.
“RIBA’s own guidance on the Principal Designer role reinforces the same point from a professional perspective: it is far more than an administrative function. Principal Designers must have a sufficient understanding of the regulatory framework to critically appraise design work, challenge compliance where necessary, seek specialist advice at the appropriate stage, and document strategies for achieving compliance and managing design changes throughout the project. This is where I believe the judgment has the greatest relevance to day-to-day practice. As designers, we are the interface between technical claims and real buildings. We coordinate the various design inputs, ask the difficult questions, test assumptions, and challenge gaps in the evidence. Ultimately, we decide whether a product is appropriate for inclusion in the design.”
Jonathan explained that the questions have to change. Not, “Is this product available?” but, “Is this product appropriate?” Not, “Does the supplier say it complies?” but, “What is the evidence, and does it apply to this specific building?”
And then we record the answers.
He concluded by saying: “Safe buildings start with that discipline, long before the first product reaches the site.”
https://cowan-architects.co.uk/
Neville Grunwald, Director of Interiors and Exteriors at Wates Group, said in response to the case and Jonathan’s comments: “This is a must-read case for anyone involved in selecting materials, which is, after all, at the heart of the design process.
“Whilst duties are imposed upon the Principal Designer (usually the architect), those who procure materials and subcontract packages also select materials, sometimes because of their financial attractiveness also bear the duties of a designer.
“I would encourage you to consider the points Jonathan makes about certification and the suitability of materials. Then ask yourself whether you, and those responsible for selecting materials and subcontract specialists within your business, are approaching these decisions with the right mindset.”
Source
