In Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited & Ors v Grey GR Limited Partnership [2026] UKUT 18 (LC), the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UT) dismissed an appeal against remediation contribution orders (RCOs) requiring a large number of respondents associated with the developer of Vista Tower to pay over £13m to the landlord towards fire safety remediation costs on a joint and several basis.

The decision provides guidance on the First-Tier Tribunal’s (FTT) jurisdiction to impose joint and several liability, the approach to the “just and equitable” test, and the interpretation of “building safety risk” under the Building and Safety Act 2022 (BSA).

Background to the appeal

In January 2025, the FTT granted RCOs requiring the original landlord and developer, Edgewater (Stevenage) Ltd, together with 75 associated companies, to contribute to costs incurred by the new landlord, Grey GR Limited Partnership, in remedying fire safety defects in a high-rise residential building. Edgewater and 12 other respondents appealed the FTT’s decision.

The Upper Tribunal’s decision

The UT rejected all the appellants’ grounds of appeal to uphold the RCOs, but disagreed with the FTT’s reasoning in relation to what may constitute a “building safety risk”. 

The key findings were:

1. The FTT has jurisdiction to make an RCO on a joint and several basis

Under s.124 BSA, the FTT can make an RCO against “a specified body corporate or partnership”. As this wording does not explicitly confer onto the FTT the power to impose joint and several liability, the appellants argued that the FTT should have required each respondent to pay a fixed and separate share of the total sum.

Rejecting this narrow interpretation, the UT undertook a detailed exercise in statutory construction and, most importantly, explained that preventing the FTT from making an RCO on a joint and several basis would undermine s.124’s statutory purpose. On the appellants’ reading, if one or more of the entities become insolvent, this could create gaps in recovering remediation costs that could ultimately fall back onto leaseholders. As such, the FTT should consider carefully in relation to each respondent what constitutes the appropriate just and equitable outcome. 

2. It was just and equitable to make an RCO on a joint and several basis

The appellants argued that imposing joint and several liability would not satisfy the “just and equitable” requirement in s.124 BSA because the FTT had not shown that the respondents participated in or received remuneration from the development. The UT held that that no such requirement existed. While the Tribunal made clear that the fact of association (as defined under s.121 BSA) might not in itself justify joint and several liability, the respondents forming “part of a fluid, disorganised and blurred network or structure” with common directorship was sufficient to justify joint and several liability.

Ultimately there is an initial burden on the applicant to prove why it is just and equitable for an RCO to be made, and then it is for the respondent to put its case in response by providing sufficient evidence in support. In this particular case, the UT noted that unsatisfactory records of the appellants’ “opaque” corporate structure supported the FTT’s discretion to make this finding.

3. There is no particular threshold for a defect to cause a “building safety risk”

Under s.120 BSA, a defect must cause a “building safety risk”. The appellants argued that this requires the risk to be “intolerable”, whereas the first-instance decision found that it means anything above a “low risk”. Rejecting both interpretations, the UT found that there is no qualifying adjective or level in defining a “building safety risk”. This view aligns with a recent FTT decision (which we discussed here) that similarly found that the extent of risk posed by a defect is not relevant for the purpose of identifying a “relevant defect”.

4. It was just and equitable to include costs of replacing entire Type 1 Wall

This was a question of fact, and the UT followed the conclusions made by the FTT based on technical expert evidence.

Key takeaways for landlords, developers and associated persons

Overall, the UT’s decision to uphold the original RCOs follows a judicial trend in which courts and tribunals favour a purposive interpretation of the BSA’s provisions. The confirmation that the FTT is empowered to impose joint and several liability signals that a wide range of entities can be subject to an RCO, even if not directly involved in a development. Meanwhile, the broad interpretation of “building safety risk” indicates that a wide range of defects can fall within the scope of an RCO.

In addition, once an applicant for an RCO has stated its case, it is the responsibility of the respondent to provide evidence that it would not be “just and equitable” to grant an RCO. Businesses involved in developing, managing or owning residential buildings should therefore maintain clear and up-to-date records of their wider corporate structures to ensure any evidence submitted can be accurately scrutinised.

With thanks to Adam Lee for his assistance in preparing this article.