In the first joint hearing of the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) and the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), the Court has provided practical guidance on managing overlapping proceedings. The decision in Wallace Estates Ltd v Durkan Estates Ltd [2026] EWHC 2133 (TCC) will be particularly relevant to landlords, developers and building owners who are, or anticipate being, involved in building safety-related proceedings. The principles that the Court applied were drawn from general case management powers and may, therefore, have broader application beyond the BSA. The TCC Guide also seems likely to be updated to formalise joint management procedures for a wider range of cases.

Background

In January 2024, the owner of Centrillion Point, Wallace Estates Limited (Wallace), was subject to a remediation order (RO) imposed by the FTT under section 123 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA).

Wallace entered into a remediation agreement with the developer, Durkan Estates Limited (Durkan), under which Durkan agreed to carry out the works at its own cost. In June 2025, following a dispute over timing, Wallace purported to terminate the agreement and took over the remedial works itself.

This gave rise to two sets of parallel proceedings:

1. Wallace applied to the FTT for a remediation contribution order of approximately £13.6 million against Durkan and its parent company.
2. Durkan brought a claim in the TCC to challenge the lawfulness of Wallace’s termination of the remediation agreement and to seek damages.

The joint hearing

The hearing on 31 July 2026 was the first occasion on which the President of the FTT (Property Chamber) and a TCC judge sat together to conduct a joint case management conference. Under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, a High Court judge is already a judge of the FTT by virtue of office, requiring no separate appointment. All that was required was the concurrence of the President of the FTT (Property Chamber).

Both parties had, by the date of this hearing, agreed to the joint case management, and both the TCC and FTT endorsed this approach.

Guidance on case management for overlapping proceedings 

• Relevant factors: In deciding whether to jointly manage the cases, the Court summarised the relevant factors set out in the White Book (the annual practitioner’s guide and authoritative reference book for conducting civil litigation in the High Court):
  • the extent of overlap between the parties, facts or issues;
  • the risk of inconsistent findings;
  • the cost and delay of multiple proceedings;
  • the stage at which proceedings have reached, with an earlier order more likely to save cost and delay; and
  • the extent to which the same advantages of joint management could be achieved by other means.
• Joining, not consolidating, hearings: The Court considered that an order for proceedings to be heard together, rather than formally consolidated, is “generally to be preferred in both the FTT and the Court”. This would allow each set of proceedings to retain its own identity, parties, procedural rules and judgment.
• Judicial composition: A panel comprising of a TCC judge and a FTT judge was considered appropriate for this trial as there were “sufficient advantages” to justify this use of judicial resources, although a single judge may be suitable in other circumstances.
• Procedural rules: While there are differences between the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) and the FTT’s rules, the Court found they were “not incompatible” regimes. For the purposes of disclosure, witness statements and expert reports, the Court endorsed the more onerous, formal and prescriptive rules under the CPR, expressly permitting cross-use of documents between proceedings.
• Costs: The FTT has a “no-costs regime” where parties generally pay their own legal costs, while the starting point in the TCC is that “costs follow the event”. The joint management order requires the parties maintain three separate cost codes for FTT-only, TCC-only, and joint work. This approach would facilitate potential apportionment decisions at the end of both proceedings. 
• TCC Guide: Section 9 of the Fourth Edition of the TCC Guide, which was not yet issued when these proceedings began, requires the completion of the BSA questionnaire in Appendix L of the TCC Guide to identify related proceedings at the outset. While this currently only covers building liability orders under sections 130 and 132 of the BSA, the Court indicated that the TCC Guide is likely to be updated to capture a broader range of cases suitable for joint management. 

Key takeaways

If the circumstances of a particular case warrant it, parties involved in overlapping TCC and FTT proceedings, particularly in building safety-related disputes, may have the opportunity to have their cases managed jointly. The Court will take into account a number of factors to determine whether cases should be joined and, depending on the circumstances, which procedural rules to apply and how costs will be managed.

Parties should raise joint management at the earliest opportunity to save on cost and delay, making sure they understand the potential procedural consequences on disclosure, witness statements, and expert reports. Parties filing claims under sections 130 or 132 of the BSA should also ensure they complete the BSA questionnaire in the TCC Guide.

As Wallace v Durkan demonstrates, the Court's general case management powers can be used to order joint management even where proceedings fall outside the current scope of the TCC Guide. With this being the first joint hearing of its kind, the case law is expected to develop and joint case management considerations are likely to become increasingly important.

With special thanks for Adam Lee for his assistance in drafting this publication.