Articles

Court of Appeal confirms – it will rarely be unjust or inequitable to make developers pay for building safety defects

Picture of Thomas Barnett

By Thomas Barnett, Lee Ward

17 Jul 2025 | 1 minute read

The Court of Appeal's decision in Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership (SVDP) is a major moment for building safety law in the UK. The appeal by SVDP & Get Living principally, in its efforts to avoid picking up the tab for rectifying building safety defects (to the tune of £18m), was rejected on all fronts. Confirming again that developers – not the taxpayer – should foot the bill for fixing unsafe buildings.

This applies even when remedial works are already being carried out and funded through the Building Safety Fund; the court said it is still fair and reasonable to make developers pay. This case therefore provides helpful insight into how the courts will apply and interpret what is (and what isn’t) just and equitable.

In short, the judgment strengthens the government's message: developers must take responsibility for the buildings they create, and public funding to remedy defects – even if already in place – should only be used as a last resort.

The case

The case concerns homes originally built to house Olympic athletes in 2012. The development was managed by SVDP, which was publicly owned at the time. Ownership has since changed hands. Triathlon Homes ended up with the leases for the affordable housing, Get Living took over the private flats, and East Village Management Ltd (EVML) was responsible for repairs and maintenance.

Triathlon asked the tribunal to issue a Remediation Contribution Order (RCO), which would make SVDP and Get Living pay for fixing safety defects (non-ACM cladding and other serious fire safety defects were discovered) under Section 124 of the Building Safety Act.

The big legal question was whether it was fair ('just and equitable') to make that order, especially since the repairs were already happening and being paid for through a government fund.

Key points from the Court's decision

Not quite. The court said there’s no automatic rule that if a company meets the criteria, an RCO must be granted. But practically speaking, if a developer qualifies and has the money, it will usually be fair to make them pay instead of using public funds.

The policy behind the BSA is clear: developers should pay. The court accepted that public funding is important, but only as a fallback. If a developer is responsible and, importantly, can afford it, they should be the ones footing the bill.

Not really. The court said that unless someone’s acting fraudulently or improperly, their reasons for applying for an RCO aren’t usually relevant. Even so, Triathlon did have a solid reason – they were trying to overcome delays caused by internal board level disagreements at EVML.

Good question – and a key issue in this case. The court said it still makes sense to issue an RCO if public money is being used to fund work that a developer should really be paying for. The fund shouldn’t act as a safety net for those who can afford to pay.

The fact that Triathlon might also have had claims against third parties didn’t stop the court from issuing the RCO. The BSA gives leaseholders an additional tool, not a secondary one. Parliament clearly wanted to give multiple ways to hold developers accountable.

No.  The court said that the current owners acquired the company knowing what they were taking on – including potential liabilities. You can’t benefit from purchasing a company and then dodge responsibility when things go wrong.

No.  Even though Get Living holds leases, the court said that doesn’t protect them from liability when they’re acting in their role as a developer or associated party. The court took a common-sense view to stop people from using technicalities to avoid paying.

Yes.  The court confirmed that Section 124 of the BSA can be applied to recover costs even if they were incurred before the law took effect. The Supreme Court had already hinted at this in another case (URS v BDW), and the Court of Appeal agreed meaning that monies drawn down under the fund will need to be repaid.

Final Thoughts

The Court of Appeal backed up a clear principle: those responsible for unsafe buildings should be the ones to pay to fix them.  Just because public funds are available doesn’t mean developers can walk away from their obligations.

The judgment here sends a strong message across the industry.  The courts will expect developers to pay their fair share – and won’t let technical loopholes, restructuring, or the existence of public funding stand in the way.

Get in touch

Related

View all