Join us to keep up to date with developments relating to the BSA 2022.
News
Court of Appeal hands down landmark Building Safety Act decisions in which Tim Polli KC, Mark Loveday, and Hugh Rowan appeared
The Court of Appeal has today handed down judgments in the eagerly anticipated linked appeals in Adriatic Land v Leaseholders of Hippersley Point and Stratford Village Development Partnership v Triathlon Homes LLP.
The appeals, heard over five days on 17th-21st March 2025, make new law about the retrospective effect of the Building Safety Act 2022. Three members of Tanfield appeared in the two cases: Mark Loveday and Hugh Rowan for the lessees in Hippersley Point, and Tim Polli KC for the management company in Triathlon.
In Hippersley Point, the principal issue was whether the leaseholder protections in Sch.8 of the Act applied to costs incurred by landlords before the legislation came into force in June 2022. The Court of Appeal found (by a majority of 2:1) that Sch.8 protected leaseholders from liability to pay for cladding removal, building safety remediation measures and associated legal costs, whenever the costs were incurred, and held (unanimously) that such retrospectively was not a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In Triathlon, the Court considered in detail the question of whether it was just and equitable to make a remediation contribution order (“RCO”) under section 124 of the 2022 Act and unanimously decided that could be made, irrespective of the date the defects occurred.
Mark Loveday and Hugh Rowan have provided a commentary on the decision in Hippersley here.
Watch this space for our upcoming commentary on the decision in Triathlon.
Mark Loveday and Hugh Rowan appeared acted pro bono for the Respondent leaseholders in Hippersley Point, instructed by Velitor Law. Tim Polli KC acted for the Second Respondent, East Village Management Limited in Triathlon, instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP.
You can read a copy of the judgment for Adriatic Land 5 Ltd here and Stratford Village Development Partnership here.
If you would like any more information, please contact one of the Tanfield practice management team. We also have a specific BSA Hub providing content and materials relating to this important piece of legislation.
This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Tanfield or by Tanfield as a whole.
Related barristers
News
This article explores the procedural pathways for applications concerning issues like adverse possession or the rectification of the register under the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002), which can be determined administratively or referred to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). It considers the critical question of what recourse an applicant has after their application is rejected by the Land Registry without a tribunal hearing. Using the Ainscough case as a detailed example, this article analyses why a subsequent attempt to litigate the same issue in court was dismissed as an abuse of process. The discussion highlights the potential procedural pitfalls for disappointed applicants, emphasising the limited options and strict timeframes for challenging an administrative decision and illustrating that there may be no “second bite at the cherry”.
Articles
The trouble with right to manage companies is that they don't have any money.
