Walker Morris secures further landmark Building Safety Act ruling in Canary Riverside case

The case concerns the Canary Riverside development in London, where the Government has sought both a Remediation Order and a Remediation Contribution Order. As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal was tasked with determining whether a “building safety risk” means any risk or if there is a tolerable threshold.

In its decision, the Tribunal confirmed that any risk of fire spread or structural collapse, even a small one, is sufficient to bring a defect within the BSA regime. The Tribunal also made clear that defects must be assessed using current knowledge, rather than the Building Regulations in force at the time of construction.

The central issue for the Tribunal was to determine the correct test under section 120: specifically, what constitutes a defect that “causes a building safety risk”.

The Tribunal concluded that:

• Whether a relevant defect exists should be assessed as at the date of the hearing.
• The question is not whether construction complied with the Building Regulations at the time, but whether, based on current knowledge, a defect poses a building safety risk.
• The applicant must establish a prima facie case that such a defect exists.

The ruling provides further clarity on how the BSA’s safety provisions should be interpreted.

The Walker Morris team was led by Martin McKeague (Partner) with support from Asia Munir (Director) and Joshua Eaton (Senior Associate).

Discussing the case, Martin McKeague, Partner at Walker Morris, said: “This decision provides further clarity on the interpretation of the Building Safety Act. The Tribunal has confirmed that a risk arising from fire spread or structural collapse is sufficient to engage the regime, even where that risk is small.

“While this establishes a low bar for establishing a relevant defect, the judgment also recognises that not every defect will necessitate work to address that defect. Further information on the ruling can be found here.