Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership [2025] EWCA Civ 846 is a landmark Court of Appeal decision, delivered on 8 July 2025, confirming key aspects of how the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) can be applied retrospectively and how remediation contribution orders (RCOs) are assessed under section 124.
Background
Triathlon Homes LLP owns long‐leasehold interests in the social and affordable housing portions of five residential blocks in the former Olympic Village, now East Village Estate in Stratford. Stratford Village Development Partnership (SVDP) initially developed the blocks post‑2012 and is now controlled by Get Living Plc. Major fire safety defects emerged, prompting Triathlon to seek remediation costs under a service charge regime traditionally managed by East Village Management Ltd (EVML).
In 2024 the First‑Tier Tribunal (FTT) granted RCOs of approximately £18 million against SVDP and Get Living. The Tribunal held that the power under section 124 BSA could be exercised retrospectively, including costs incurred before the Act’s commencement, and that it was “just and equitable” to order the original developer and its associated company to contribute
SVDP and Get Living appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging (i) the retrospective application of RCOs to pre‑June 2022 costs and (ii) whether it was just and equitable to impose contribution liability on them.
Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds of appeal, upholding the FTT’s decisions in full.
Retrospectivity
The Court confirmed that the leaseholder protection provisions in Schedule 8 and the RCO power under section 124 BSA 2022 apply retrospectively. The Act explicitly allows RCOs to include remediation costs incurred before 28 June 2022, the statutory commencement date of Part 5 BSA.
Just and Equitable Test
On whether it was “just and equitable” to make orders against SVDP and Get Living, the Court applied a test aligned with the BSA’s policy to place primary responsibility for building safety with the original developer and those in the chain of development.
Key Findings
In reaching its conclusion, the Court made a number of key findings:
- Developer Hierarchy: The developer sits at the top of responsibility. The Court accepted that SVDP had been the original developer, and Get Living a specified associated corporate entity, making them appropriate subjects of RCOs.
- Irrelevance of Public Funding: Although remediation was funded by the Government’s Building Safety Fund, that did not undermine the FTT’s conclusion that contribution by SVDP and Get Living was justified.
- Exceptions: The Court acknowledged exceptional cases where RCOs might be unjust, such as associated companies in entirely different business lines, or charitable entities involved voluntarily. Such scenarios did not apply here.
- Irrelevance of Party Identity: It made no difference that Triathlon, rather than EVML or the Secretary of State, brought the application—what mattered was the nature of the order and the fairness of imposing it on SVDP and Get Living.
Implications and Conclusion
This judgment provides further clarity on the application of the BSA, clarifying the following:
- RCOs issued under the Building Safety Act may include costs incurred before the Act came into force, reinforcing its policy intent to allocate remediation liability to responsible entities regardless of timing.
- Original developers and corporate parents are firmly within the Act’s enforcement scope, provided they meet the statutory definition of “specified persons” or “associated companies”.
- Public funding does not preclude liability for remediation costs, nor does it undermine equitable contribution.
- Triathlon Homes, as leaseholder applicant, was entitled to pursue an RCO; standing is not limited to public bodies or regulators.
Generally, the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership affirms the retrospective reach of remediation contribution powers and provides clarity regarding who can realistically be called upon for remediation costs within the post‑Grenfell regulatory framework. Developers and associated entities should take note: historical involvement in development projects may now trigger significant liability, even if the relevant costs were incurred before the BSA’s commencement.