Vista Tower explained: new guidance on the scope of the Building Safety Act 2022

The Upper Tribunal’s decision in the Vista Tower appeal marks an important moment in the development of Remediation Contribution Orders (“RCOs”) under the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”). As one of the first fully contested appeals in this area, the judgment provides important guidance on how RCOs can be used to look beyond corporate structures and, where appropriate, impose joint and several liability across interconnected groups of companies.

Often referred to as the Vista Tower case, the decision is now a leading authority on the application of the 'just and equitable' test under section 124 of the BSA and offers clear insight into the Tribunal’s approach to responsibility and cost allocation.

Background

The Vista Tower appeal arises out of the redevelopment of Vista Tower, a residential high‑rise building in Stevenage. The freehold of the building was sold to the Grey GR Limited Partnership (“Grey”), in 2018. Shortly afterwards, inspections identified significant fire safety defects in the building’s external walls. As a result, a Remediation Order was made requiring Grey to carry out remedial works by a set deadline, incurring costs in excess of £13 million.

To recover those costs, Grey applied for RCOs and, in January 2025, the First Tier Tribunal granted RCOs against 76 corporate entities associated with the original developer, Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited (“Edgewater”). While the decision did not set out the precise role of each entity, they were described collectively as companies within the wider Edgewater corporate structure. The RCOs were made on a joint and several basis, meaning that any one respondent could, in principle, be held liable for the full amount of the remediation costs.

The appellants challenged the RCOs on a number of grounds, including whether the Tribunal had the power to impose joint and several liability in this way and how the 'just and equitable' test under the BSA should be applied. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal in full, using the decision to provide important guidance on both issues and, more broadly, on the approach tribunals should take to liability under the BSA.

The 'just and equitable' test

Put simply, the RCO regime boils down to one basic issue:  whether it is fair, in all the circumstances, to require a party to contribute towards the remediation costs.

Section 124(1) of the BSA gives the Tribunal a broad discretion to make an order where it considers it 'just and equitable' to do so, and the Vista Tower decision helps to show how widely that discretion can operate.

By way of context, RCOs apply only to 'relevant buildings', broadly those over 11 metres in height or with at least five storeys and containing at least two residential units. However, within that scope, the statutory framework is broad, and an order may be made where a relevant defect gives rise to a building safety risk and if it is just and equitable to require 'associated companies' to contribute to remediation costs.

For these purposes, an 'associated company' is one that is sufficiently connected to the landlord or developer, with the legislation deliberately taking a wide approach to prevent liability being avoided through corporate structuring. Under section 121 of the Building Safety Act 2022, this can include entities that share directors, are within the same corporate group (for example, where one controls the other or both are under common control), have participated in the same partnership, or are beneficiaries under the same trust. The idea also covers situations where companies are closely connected in practice, even if that link isn’t obvious on paper—for example, where the same people ultimately run them, or where they rely heavily on each other financially or operationally.

In applying the just and equitable test, the Tribunal followed the approach set out in Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership & Ors [2024] UKFTT 26 (PC), making clear that:

1. assessment is not confined by fault, contractual responsibility, or direct involvement in the development; and

1. there is no requirement for a respondent to have carried out the works or received profits.

Instead, the focus is on whether it is fair to require a party to contribute so that the funding needed to remediate unsafe buildings can be secured and works can proceed without delay.

In Vista Tower, the Tribunal imposed RCOs on all 76 respondent companies, finding that they operated as “a fluid, disorganised and blurred network or structure.” Therefore, the Tribunal decided that it was just and equitable to make RCOs against each of those entities.

The Tribunal was not persuaded that it was appropriate to distinguish between the individual respondents and instead concluded that joint responsibility should be imposed on all companies forming part of the wider corporate structure. The Appeal Tribunal endorsed that approach, emphasising the Tribunal’s finding that, on the evidence before it, the fair outcome was an “all or nothing” one.

In practice, once a credible case is established, the Tribunal’s broad discretion means the threshold for making an RCO may be lower than in traditional fault-based claims. The legal burden doesn’t switch, and it is still up to the applicant to prove their case, but in situations involving complex group structures, companies may find themselves needing to explain why it would be unfair to include them, especially if they appear to be closely connected to the wider group. That said, Vista Tower doesn’t mean every connected company will automatically be on the hook. If businesses are genuinely separate, both on paper and in how they actually operate, with different ownership, finances, and roles in the development, the Tribunal can draw sensible distinctions. In the end, it comes down to the specific facts and whether, taking everything into account, it really is fair to require a particular company to contribute.

The Tribunal’s approach

The Tribunal confirmed that:

• a respondent does not need to have been directly responsible for the defect;

• it does not need to have played an active role in the building’s design or construction;

• receiving profits from the development may be relevant, but it is not a prerequisite for liability; and

• a 'building safety risk' for the purposes of section 120(5) of the BSA means any level of risk - there is no requirement to establish a particular degree or severity of risk.

That does not mean, however, that liability is limitless or that any party with a remote connection to the building is exposed. The Tribunal is not just looking for the smallest technical risk in isolation but will consider the wider circumstances to decide whether it is fair, overall, to expect a particular respondent to help meet the remediation costs.

In doing so, the Tribunal has made clear that it is entitled to look beyond development‑specific roles and instead examine the wider corporate and financial context, including ownership structures, intra‑group relationships, and how value flowed from the development. This represents a deliberate shift away from strict legal causation and towards a more policy‑driven assessment of responsibility, focused on entities that are properly connected to the development and have benefitted from, or exercised control over it.

How RCOs fit alongside Building Liability Orders

RCOs are often mentioned alongside Building Liability Orders (BLOs), as both can be used to reach companies beyond the main developer. The key difference is that:

1. RCOs are about getting money to fix a building, based on what the Tribunal thinks is fair.

1. BLOs are about enforcing an existing legal right by extending liability to other connected companies.

In practice, they can achieve similar outcomes by allowing claims to go beyond a single company. RCOs are usually quicker and more flexible, as they do not require a claim to be proven first.

We anticipate that RCOs and BLOs will be more commonly used together, depending on the situation, to help make sure the cost of fixing a building can be recovered.

Practical impact

Vista Tower shows that RCOs can now be used in a wider way to recover the cost of fixing unsafe buildings. Instead of claims being limited to one company, they can reach across an entire group of related companies behind a development.

In practical terms, this may make a big difference as it means that claimants are no longer stuck chasing a single company that may not have enough money to pay. They can look at the bigger picture and pursue other connected companies, which makes it far more likely that the costs will actually be recovered.

The decision also makes clear that the Tribunal has a lot of flexibility. It is not just asking who is legally at fault. Instead, it looks at what is fair overall, taking into account things like how the companies are connected, who was in control, and who benefited financially.

Because of that, RCOs are likely to play a more active role in disputes. The risk that liability could spread across a whole group may push companies to settle earlier or agree to contribute, especially where their corporate structure is complicated or unclear.

However, there is a downside. The rules are now quite broad, which creates some uncertainty. Companies that were only loosely or historically connected to a development could still be caught, and it is not yet clear exactly where the line will be drawn in future cases.

Conclusion

The Vista Tower decision firmly establishes the 'just and equitable' test as a powerful and flexible tool. Its application is broad, driven by policy, and unconstrained by fault or traditional responsibility.

For those involved in property development, exposure under the BSA is not confined to the entities directly responsible for carrying out the works. The focus has moved away from identifying who caused the defects and towards identifying who the Tribunal considers it fair to require to pay to put them right.

The decision confirms that liability for remediation does not depend on an entity’s direct involvement in, or financial gain from, the development. Building on the decision in Triathlon Homes, the Upper Tribunal found that the “just and equitable” test may justify imposing liability across an entire corporate group where the business has in practice operated through a “fluid, disorganised and blurred” corporate structure. Where associated entities cannot clearly explain the group’s structure and funding, the tribunal may draw adverse inferences and treat the group as one economic enterprise, taking an "all or nothing" approach to imposing RCO's against all group entities.

Need advice?

Our specialist construction disputes and dispute avoidance team can assist with all aspects of Building Safety Claims. For more information, please contact Dickon Court, Eric Livingston, Jessica Jackson or Chloe Wood.