Case Note: Upper Tribunal dismisses the Vista Tower appeal 28 January 2026
In our latest article about the Building Safety Act 2022, Paul Letman summarises the Upper Tribunal's decision in the Vista Tower appeal.
The Upper Tribunal has issued its decision in the Vista Tower appeal - Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited and Others v Grey GR Limited Partnership [2026] UKUT 18 (LC).
The decision may be summarised as follows:
- On Ground 1, that the FTT was wrong in making a single RCO against a large number of respondents, making them jointly and severally liable to make the specified payments. Held: Rejected. This issue here was a matter of statutory construction. Given the legislative scheme and purpose of the BSA, it is necessary to read section 124 as permitting the imposition of joint and several liability. That is not to say, however, that joint and several liability is the starting point in every case. The FTT is required to consider carefully in relation to each respondent, what constitutes the appropriate just and equitable outcome just as it did in this case.
- On Ground 2, that the FTT was wrong to make the RCO against the various respondents, in that it should as a minimum have determined whether they participated in or were in receipt directly or indirectly of remuneration from the development. Held: Rejected. The FTT had not treated the mere fact of association as sufficient to justify the making of the RCO against the respondents. The FTT found that the respondents were part of a group or wider corporate structure with the developer and on that basis that it was just and equitable to make an RCO against the specified respondents. There is no minimum requirement or nexus required, the test is ‘just and equitable.’
- On Ground 3, that the FTT should have directed themselves that only an ‘intolerable’ risk rather than merely a ‘low’ risk could be a ‘building safety risk’. Held: Rejected. Disagreeing with the tribunal below and the ground of appeal, the UT expressed the view that there is no justification for imposing any kind of external gradation or limit on the level of risk which is capable of qualifying the reference to ‘a risk’ in the definition of building safety risk. Section 120(5) means what it says, ‘a risk’ means any risk.
- On Ground 4, that the FTT wrongly concluded that it was just and equitable to include within the RCO the costs of replacing the Type 1 Wall in its entirety. Held: Rejected. The appeal on this ground was essentially one of fact and the UT could see nothing wrong with the conclusions reached by the FTT below, which were both explained and grounded in the evidence before the tribunal.
In addition, the UT appears to have accepted and adopted the distinction drawn in Adriatic and Triathlon between Explanatory Notes that were and those that were not available during the passage of the relevant legislation in Parliament. A distinction that is not without its critics.
Back to articles
