Vista Tower appeal: Upper Tribunal upholds RCO decision
Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited and Others v Grey GR Limited Partnership [2026] UKUT 18 (LC).
The Upper Tribunal (“UT”) has handed down its decision in the Vista Tower appeal against one of the first contested remediation contribution orders (RCO) made under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (“the Act”).
Mr Justice Edwin Johnson upheld the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”), dismissing all four grounds of appeal.
Key Takeaways
Joint and Several Liability Confirmed
The UT confirmed that:
- The FTT has the power to make a RCO against multiple respondents on a joint and several basis.
- Although the discretion conferred on the FTT by section 124(1) is very wide and each decision will turn on its own particular facts, had Parliament intended to prevent joint and several liability, the RCO mechanism could not work as intended, effectively frustrating the statutory purpose of protecting leaseholders from remediation costs.
No Error in application of “Just and Reasonable Test
The UT also rejected the appellants’ arguments that the FTT had wrongly conflated sections 121 and 124 of the Act by making the RCO against various respondents, and that participation in a development or receipt of remuneration should be a minimum requirement before an RCO can be made.
Mr Justice Johnson confirmed that:
- The question of what is "just and equitable" is left at large under section 124(1).
- There is no requirement for direct participation or receipt of profits, and decisions will be very fact-sensitive.
- Therefore, where respondents form part of a wider corporate structure through which business is conducted, it will be just and equitable to impose responsibility on all such respondents if the evidence supports it.
Burden of Proof Clarified
The UT also clarified the burden of proof:
- The gateway considerations of section 121 and the initial burden of establishing whether it is just and equitable to make an RCO fall to the applicant or interested person.
- Once the applicant has stated its case, it is for the respondent to prove why it is not just and equitable for the order to be made against them.
What Constitutes a "Building Safety Risk"?
The UT also provided important guidance on the meaning of "building safety risk" for the purposes of section 120(5) of the Act.
Significantly, Mr Justice Johnson disagreed with the FTT's ruling that "a risk" meant any risk above a "low" risk. Instead, he found that:
- The reference in section 120(5) to "a risk" does not refer to any particular level of risk and is not graduated. It simply refers to any risk, restrained only by whether it satisfies the other conditions for the existence of a building safety risk.
This interpretation may warrant careful consideration by the industry. With many fire safety experts taking a more practical view that all high-rise buildings carry an inherent fire safety risk to some degree, the UT’s approach in this decision, which removes any threshold or grading, appears to align more with that reality.
Further Reading
For a full breakdown of the original FTT decision and the broader context of RCOs under the Building Safety Act 2022, see our BSA Annual Review [1]which provides detailed analysis of Grey GR Limited Partnership v Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited and Others and the developing case law in this area.
