The recent Vista Tower has been through several appeals, but the case finally reached conclusion in the Upper Tier Tribunal on the 27th January 2026 and with it comes a stark warning.

This case is significant for the finishes and interiors sector as it emphasises that the Building Safety Act (BSA) must be applied in a way that ensures those responsible for defects (including contractors) bear the cost rather than leaseholders.  The Tribunal confirmed that Remediation Contribution Order (RCOs) can apply even where contractual liability is disputed or time‑barred, that the scope is broader than cladding and that it is permissible for the First Tier Tribunal to share the cost of blame across multiple companies.

Background

Vista Tower is a 16-storey building of almost 50 meters in height, and was constructed in the early 1960s. In 2015/2016, it was converted from office use to residential use by the then freeholder, Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited (“Edgewater”).

The conversion of the building into 73 residential flats was commissioned by the first appellant, Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited (R1), which sold the freehold to Grey GR Limited Partnership (Grey) in 2018 for £587,650. Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, investigations identified significant fire safety defects in the building’s external walls.

Grey subsequently applied to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) for a Remediation Contribution Order (RCO) in respect of remedial works estimated to exceed £13 million. In January 2025, the FTT issued an order against 76 of the 96 original respondents, holding them jointly and severally liable for £13,262,119.08. These parties, referred to as the “Specified Respondents,” comprised various corporate entities connected to the developer.

The Appellants challenge

The Appellants Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited and Others (“Appellant”) challenged the FTT jurisdiction, its “just and equitable” analysis, the meaning of “building safety risk” and the reasonableness of certain remediation costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in full, confirming that:

  1. The FTT does have jurisdiction under S.124 BSA to impose joint and several liability;
  2. The FTT was entitled, on the evidence, to find it just and equitable to impose collective liability across a wider, opaque corporate structure, rather than apportioning liability;
  3. A “building safety risk” under S.120 BSA means any risk to safety arising from fire spread or collapse (not only “intolerable” risks);
  4. The FTT was entitled to include the full costs of replacing the Type 1 external wall, where the building owner reasonably relied on expert advice and acted under regulatory and funding pressure.

This decision provided authoritative guidance on the scope and operation of RCOs and significantly strengthens the effectiveness of the BSA’s remediation regime.

Key points of the tribunal decision

  1. FTT has jurisdiction under S.124 BSA
  • The Tribunal can impose joint and several liability on multiple companies, even if the law talks about “a specified body corporate.”
  • Liability can cover multiple entities in a corporate group to prevent enforcement gaps if some entities are insolvent.
  1. “Just and equitable” is broad and flexible
  • Meeting the basic legal conditions isn’t enough; the Tribunal must decide whether it is fair overall.
  • This doesn’t depend on who directly profited or was involved; it looks at the substance of the corporate group.
  • In this case, evidence showed the respondents acted as a single, loosely coordinated corporate network, justifying collective liability.
  1. “Building safety risk” covers any risk
  • A “building safety risk” under S.120(5) includes any risk to safety, not just intolerable or high risks.
  • The severity of the risk matters only when deciding how much remediation is reasonable.
  1. Reasonable reliance on expert advice protects the owner
  • Even if some remediation was later considered technically excessive, the building owner acted reasonably by following expert guidance under regulatory and funding pressure.
  • Courts are unlikely to overturn these factual findings unless they are irrational or unsupported by evidence.
  1. Economic reality over corporate form
  • Liability depends on the real economic structure of a corporate group, not just legal paperwork.
  • If a project company is a shell but part of a larger group, liability can be extended to the “deeper-pocketed” associated companies.
  • The aim is to ensure liability is enforceable and to prevent loopholes from using small or insolvent entities.

The Tribunal confirmed that the phrase “just and equitable” conferred a broad evaluative discretion, is not fault-based, is not constrained by rigid threshold requirements such as direct involvement or receipt of profit, and requires an assessment of substance over form, particularly in the context of corporate groups and associated entities.

Whilst this case relates to S.124, the Tribunal’s reasoning is directly relevant to S.130 bearing in mind both provisions use the same statutory language, i.e. “if the court considers it just and equitable to do so”.

In this case, the Tribunal stressed that association alone does not impose liability, liability follows the economic reality, not the paper structure. The same would apply under S.130. Further, S.132 allows the Court to compel disclosure of group structure and financial information. Being an associate company does not automatically mean a BLO will be made however being an associated company will require the Court to scrutinise the group reality and not just the corporate chart. In this sense, where a developer used a thin SPV for the project but was part of a larger operational group, a BLO extending liability to the wider group is likely just and equitable. BLOs are about extending liability to ensure enforceability. Therefore, if the original company that is liable is a shell, it is just and equitable to extend the same liability to the deeper-pocketed associated companies. Pursuant to S.130(2), the Court may impose express joint and several liability. Where a group operate as one economic unit, joint and several liability may well be “just and equitable”. Requiring apportionment would undermine the statutory purpose.

Conclusions:

Taken together, the Tribunal’s reasoning supports the conclusion that:

  • The BSA exists to protect consumers and should be applied in line with its purpose, not narrow technicalities.
  • Contractors face increased exposure for historic defects.
  • Defences based on contract, limitation, or lack of documentation are weakened.
  • Increased risk of scrutiny of past workmanship and compliance issues.

To view the case in full visit: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/lc/2026/18?tribunal=ukut%2Flc