Almost 100 cladding, building and fire-safety cases are now active in London’s High Court, with a combined value of about £1.2bn, according to litigation intelligence platform Solomonic and reporting published by the Financial Times on 8 September 2026.
That figure changes the way we should view the post-Grenfell building safety disputes. This is no longer a handful of headline judgments involving a small number of high-rise blocks. It is becoming a market-wide litigation wave, reaching developers, housebuilders, contractors, architects, façade engineers, specialist subcontractors, product manufacturers and social housing providers.
The cases cover luxury developments, student accommodation, social housing portfolios and commercial buildings such as hotels. Many are proceeding under the Building Safety Act 2022, which has changed the potential routes to recovery and, in some cases, extended limitation periods for historic work.
For construction businesses in Essex, Kent and London, the message is practical: work completed many years ago may still be relevant, and every link in the contractual chain needs to understand its exposure.
Read the FT-syndicated report via Factinface.
The chain reaction behind the £1.2bn
The pattern appearing across many cases is familiar. A developer or building owner faces the cost of making a building safe, then brings a claim against the main contractor. The contractor in turn pursues the architect, façade engineer, specialist subcontractor or manufacturer. Those parties may then bring their own claims further down the supply chain.
Andrew Parker, construction disputes and building safety partner at Forsters, described the dynamic plainly:
“There are plenty of opportunities for people to point the finger or pass the buck. The contractor says I was working off the design from the architect, the architect says I spoke to the facade engineer, the facade engineer says I told the subcontractor what to do. And everyone says building control signed it off.”
That is not simply a legal argument. It creates a large evidence problem. The court may need to understand who selected a product, who approved a design, what information was available at the time, what building control reviewed and whether the final installation matched the specification.
The Mulalley v Sto judgment illustrates this chain clearly. A contractor that had settled with its client was able to pursue a cladding supplier and recover a substantial proportion of the relevant remediation costs. The court also allowed liability to reach the supplier’s overseas parent through a Building Liability Order.
The wider point is that being the main contractor does not necessarily mean carrying the entire loss, but recovery depends on contracts, records, expert evidence and insurance arrangements that remain effective.
The Building Safety Act has widened the risk
The Building Safety Act 2022 has changed the risk landscape in two important ways.
First, Building Liability Orders can allow a court to extend certain building safety liabilities from one company to associated companies where it is just and equitable to do so. That can include parent companies, sister companies and, in suitable circumstances, overseas entities.
Our article on Building Liability Orders and whole-company group exposure explains why a project company or insolvent subsidiary may no longer be the only company in the frame.
Second, the Act has extended limitation periods for certain claims relating to defective dwellings, including a retrospective period of up to 30 years in qualifying circumstances. This means work completed in 2005, 2006 or 2008 may still be examined today.
That is particularly relevant to businesses across the South East. Many Essex, Kent and London contractors, consultants and specialist trades worked on residential schemes during that period. Some businesses have changed ownership, merged, closed divisions or moved away from the type of work they performed at the time. Their historic records and insurance policies may still matter.
Lawyers representing defendants have argued that claims concerning old projects can be difficult to defend fairly because records are missing and witnesses have retired. Those arguments are likely to remain part of the wider debate, but businesses should not wait for the law to settle before reviewing their own records.
Eclipse Tower shows how complicated one claim can become
The Eclipse Tower dispute in Bristol is a useful example of the multi-party litigation now reaching the High Court.
The 18-storey residential building sits above Harvey Nichols. After the Grenfell fire, inspections identified combustible materials within the external wall construction. The developer, Bristol Alliance, paid main contractor Sir Robert McAlpine £19m for remedial works but reserved its right to pursue recovery.
Bristol Alliance sued McAlpine in 2023. McAlpine then brought claims against architect Benoy and subcontractor Richardson Roofing. Benoy pursued subconsultant Arup Façade Engineering, while Richardson Roofing brought insulation manufacturer Kingspan into the dispute, alleging it had been misled by product marketing.
The High Court has ordered a major multi-party trial for next year.
This is the “pass the buck” structure in practical form. Each party may have a different explanation of what happened, but all parties face legal costs, management time, expert evidence and the possibility of an adverse judgment.
For contractors operating on thin margins, that cost can be severe even before liability is finally determined. A lengthy dispute can restrict borrowing, delay investment and put pressure on payment to subcontractors. In some cases, an adverse judgment combined with legal costs could push a business into insolvency.
Ardmore and the danger of insolvency
The Crest Nicholson v Ardmore dispute demonstrates how building safety litigation and insolvency can interact.
Ardmore's main contracting businesses collapsed in 2026, and the company entered administration reportedly shortly before an adjudicator ordered payment of approximately £15m in connection with fire-safety defects at Admiralty Quarter in Portsmouth. Crest then used Building Safety Act provisions to pursue wider group entities connected to the contractor.
The High Court sided with Crest in April, although the associated entities are appealing. Anthony Field of Rosenblatt warned that, unless the judgment is overturned or Parliament intervenes, the consequences could be devastating for the construction industry and could lead to more businesses entering insolvency.
The financial impact does not stop with the defendant. As explained in our Ardmore subcontractor lesson, administration can leave subcontractors with unpaid applications, lost retentions, committed labour costs and little prospect of recovering what they are owed.
Historic work and insurance need attention
The Taylor Wimpey v Taylor Woodrow and Vinci Construction dispute concerns Victoria Wharf in Cardiff, with seven apartment blocks completed between 2005 and 2008 and approximately £30m in dispute. Under the former limitation rules, the right to sue would have expired. The extended limitation period has brought the historic project back into focus.
The same issue may affect contractors and consultants that worked on residential developments throughout Essex, Kent and London. The fact that a project was completed, signed off or commercially closed does not necessarily mean the risk has disappeared.
Businesses should review:
- Retroactive dates on professional indemnity policies.
- Run-off arrangements following a sale, closure or change of trade.
- Notification obligations for circumstances that may give rise to a claim.
- Whether historic work is properly described to insurers.
- Products liability cover for supplied or specified materials.
- Contractual rights of recovery against designers, suppliers and subcontractors.
- Whether defence costs are covered when a contractor is caught between a client claim and a supply-chain recovery claim.
- The effect of exclusions for defective work, contractual liability or known circumstances.
A standard liability policy is not a universal answer to a building safety dispute. A contractor may need public liability, products liability and professional indemnity cover, and the policy wording will determine how those covers respond.
This is why the PI exposure hiding in construction contracts deserves attention. Design coordination, specification and fitness-for-purpose obligations can create professional indemnity exposure even where a business still describes itself as “just the contractor”.
What contractors should do now
I recommend that contractors and specialist firms take eight practical steps:
- Identify historic residential and fire-safety-related projects. Include work carried out between 2005 and 2016, not only recent developments.
- Preserve records. Retain contracts, drawings, specifications, product literature, inspection reports, certificates, correspondence and settlement documents.
- Review limitation exposure. Take legal advice on whether the Building Safety Act or another route could bring an old project back into scope.
- Audit insurance programmes. Check retroactive dates, run-off cover, limits, exclusions and notification clauses.
- Notify potential circumstances promptly. A letter of claim, adjudication notice, investigation or request for historic project information may require notification.
- Map the contract chain. Identify who owes an indemnity or contribution if your business is pursued for a product, design or installation you relied on.
- Check group-company exposure. Understand which parent, subsidiary or associated companies may be relevant to a Building Liability Order.
- Monitor insolvency risk. Review the financial position of major clients, contractors and supply-chain partners before exposure becomes too large.
The estimated total cost of fixing unsafe blocks is between £12.6bn and £22.4bn, according to a parliamentary report cited in the recent reporting. Only a small number of judgments have been handed down so far, so the ultimate question of who pays remains unresolved.
Simon Tolson of Fenwick Elliott has said that the Building Safety Act is reshaping liability across the construction sector. I think that is the right description. The law is not simply creating new claims; it is changing how businesses assess corporate structure, historic work, contracts and insurance.
At Moyak Insurance Services, we help businesses review Construction Contractor Insurance, General Contractor Liability Insurance, professional indemnity and wider Business Insurance Essex and Business Insurance London requirements. The objective is not just to find a policy, but to understand whether the programme reflects the work your business has done, the contracts it is accepting and the risks still sitting in its past.
The construction industry is trying to resolve a 40-year problem in a few years. As Andrew Parker observed, far-reaching measures such as 30-year limitation periods and piercing the corporate veil have arrived quickly. Contractors should respond just as quickly by reviewing their records, contracts and insurance before the next letter arrives.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Building Safety Act claims, limitation issues, Building Liability Orders and insurance coverage depend on the facts, applicable law and policy wording. Obtain specialist legal advice and speak to your insurance broker about your circumstances.
Frequently asked questions
How many cladding and fire-safety cases are active in the High Court?
Nearly 100 cases are active in London’s High Court, according to reporting by the Financial Times on 8 September 2026 based on data from Solomonic. The combined value is reported to be about £1.2bn.
Can old construction projects still be pursued?
Potentially, yes. The Building Safety Act has retrospectively extended certain limitation periods for qualifying claims relating to defective dwellings, in some cases up to 30 years. The applicable legal route and facts must be assessed by a solicitor.
Can a Building Liability Order reach a parent company?
It can. A Building Liability Order may extend certain building safety liabilities to associated companies where the statutory conditions are met and the court considers the outcome just and equitable. It is not automatic.
What insurance should a construction contractor review?
A contractor should consider Construction Contractor Insurance, public and General Contractor Liability Insurance, products liability, professional indemnity, employers’ liability, contract works, run-off and any project-specific arrangements. The correct cover depends on the work and contractual obligations.
Should a contractor notify insurers about a historic building-safety concern?
A potential claim or circumstance may need to be notified promptly, particularly under a claims-made professional indemnity policy. Contractors should review the policy wording and obtain advice rather than waiting for a formal court claim.
Why do contract chains matter in cladding disputes?
The developer may pursue the main contractor, which may then seek contributions from architects, façade engineers, subcontractors or manufacturers. Clear contracts, preserved records and enforceable insurance obligations can affect whether a business is able to recover its losses.