Background
The dispute concerned remedial works at Centrillion Point, a residential development in Croydon. The development was already subject to a remediation order ("RO") dated 4 January 2024, issued against the proprietor, Wallace Estates Limited (“Wallace”) following an application by the leaseholders under section 123 of the Building Safety Act 2022 ("BSA").On 1 July 2024, Wallace entered into a Remediation Agreement ("RA") with Durkan Estates Limited (“Durkan”). Under the RA, Durkan was responsible for rectifying, at its own cost, the "relevant defects" at the development within the meaning of section 120 of the BSA.
The relationship between the parties subsequently broke down. Following FTT's refusal to extend the completion date in the RO, Wallace served a notice of termination on the RA and assumed responsibility of the remedial works. On 29 September 2025, Wallace applied to the FTT for a remediation contribution order against Durkan and its parent company, Durkan Holdings Limited, pursuant to section 124 of the BSA. Durkan subsequently raised proceedings in the TCC seeking declarations that Wallace had unlawfully terminated the RA, together with damages. Wallace lodged a counterclaim for declaration that the termination was indeed lawful and alleged that further defects existed at the development which had not been disclosed in the remediation order.
As the proceedings concerned the same project and involved overlapping issues, Durkan sought joint case management.
Key issues
The principal question before the TCC and FTT was whether proceedings raised in separate forums could and should, under CPR and FTT rules, be jointly managed and ultimately determined through a single process.
The TCC and the FTT considered, inter alia, whether:
- The claims were sufficiently connected;
- Coordinated management would increase efficiency and reduce costs;
- The different procedural rules regarding disclosure, witness and expert evidence could be aligned without sufficient duplication;
- Findings of fact should be carried out against Durkan Holdings Limited, given it was not a party to the TCC proceedings.
The court’s decision
The TCC and FTT concluded that the proceedings should be coordinated and heard together.
A key factor was the substantial overlap between the claims. They involved common factual issues concerning the RA, the quality of the remediation works, the existence of defects and the consequences of Wallace's termination of the RA.
The proceedings would rely on substantially the same witnesses, documents and expert evidence. Separate hearings would therefore result in unnecessary duplication, increase costs and place additional demands on court and tribunal resources.
Particular emphasis was placed on the risk of inconsistent factual findings. If the TCC and FTT independently assessed the same evidence, they could reach different conclusions on central issues such as defects, workmanship or contractual conduct. Coordinated proceedings would therefore avoid that risk.
Although the TCC and FTT operate under distinct statutory and procedural frameworks, the TCC and FTT considered that both possessed sufficient case management powers to facilitate a joint process. The claims will therefore proceed to a 12-day trial listed for 2027/2028, with coordinated directions for disclosure, witness evidence, expert evidence and trial preparation to follow in due course.
Key takeaways
Importantly, the judgment demonstrates a willingness to adopt innovative case management solutions in the interests of costs, efficiency and consistency. Whilst the Fourth Edition of the TCC Guide had not been published when the proceedings commenced, the decision is a clear endorsement of the principles set out in section 9 of the guidance, which encourages a coordinated approach between the TCC and FTT to Building Safety Act disputes.
Parties involved in building safety disputes should expect an increase in coordinated or joint proceedings where overlapping issues arise before both the TCC and FTT.
Our Construction team can provide tailored advice on the impact of the judgement in Wallace Estates v Durkan Estates on your business.
We would like to thank Wiktor Mazurenko and Alice Flynn for their contribution to this article.
