Building Safety Act – where are we now?

As we turn towards the later end of 2025, and with the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”) turning three years old, we’re outlining some headline legal developments from the last 6 months.

The decisions of the First Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) have no authority as precedents, but the treatment of their award of Remediation Orders demands attention from parties looking to apply and / or litigate.

In particular, the FTT’s pro-leaseholder stance has visibly borne out in its consideration of a number of disparate issues. On the Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) side, the following two cases have headlined recent developments:

BDW Trading v Ardmore Construction [2024] EWHC 3235 (TCC) – February 2025

The TCC in BDW v Ardmore rejected the precedent reasoning in Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40, and established that claims in adjudication could be sought in reliance on the extended limitation periods under the Defective Premises Act 1972. In this case, the claim was brought around twenty years post-practical completion, and resulted in Ardmore having to pay BDW £14.5million.

The case also demonstrated the Court’s narrow approach to the grant of a Building Liability Information Order against related companies which may make parties less likely to pursue them in the future.

381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Ltd and others v Click St Andrews Ltd (In Liquidation) and another [2024] EWHC 3569 (TCC) – March 2025

Jefford J awarded the first Building Liability Order (“BLO”) under section 132 BSA on 31 March 2025. The Court made a BLO against the holding company for the insolvent development SPV. The holding company owned all the shares in the subsidiary which in turn wholly owned the SPV. Taking into account the judgment in Triathlon Homes LLP and Stratford Village Development Partnership [2024] UKFTT 26 (PC), the court considered that the original Defendant’s solvency was relevant to ascertaining whether it was “just and equitable” under BSA 2022 Section 130(1).

What is next for the BSA?

While the big-league litigation still seems to be in the distant future, the initial indications from the courts are that the intention is to give effect to the rights of leaseholders and residents as a priority, but the need to manage this in order that the industry can withstand the changes is paramount.

In practical terms, the Grenfell Phase 2 report published in February made recommendations which portended that the regulatory sands might shift in the near future, such as the threshold for Higher-Risk Buildings being lowered and the need to appoint a fire engineer at Gateway 2 stage.

The Higher-Risk Building gateways regime has also been high on the agenda most recently in the Government’s response to the issue of delays in approvals , which has been getting progressively worse since the Building Safety Regulator (the “Regulator”)’s inception. In February 2025, Gateway 2 approvals alone were taking around 22 weeks to determine one way or the other, allegedly due in part to too much reliance on outsourcing within the Regulator. This has caused considerable tension between contractors needing to keep to agreed prices and holding commitments to pipeline projects, and employers needing to meet deadlines for funding and planning permissions.

The new fast-track process, leadership changes and increased resource within the Regulator announced at the end of June will be welcome news for the industry but it remains to be seen whether the impact will be effective immediately.

The legislation passed most recently also suggests that further pressure is to be applied; how construction measures up to this will be closely monitored.

Please do get in touch with us with any queries or concerns, or scan the QR code for more information.

Caroline Watkins Partner, Real Estate at Thomson Snell

Passmore