翰宇国际律师事务所-建筑安全 Building Safety F(ACT)s Spring 2026

SQUIRE

PATTONBOGGS

LocalConnections.GlobalInfluence.

BuildingSafetyF(ACT)s

Spring2026

WelcometothespringeditionofourBuildingSafetyF(ACT)s

newsletter,whereweprovideyouwithbite-sizedupdatesonfireandbuildingsafetyissues.

Thisspringeditionincludes:

OPSSEnforcementActionsforConstructionProductsBetween1April2025and

30September2025 1

UpdatesonFlatEntranceFireDoorsandtheResidentialEvacuation

PlansRegulations 2

ConsultationontheGeneralSafetyRequirementforConstruction

Products 3

BuildingSafetyAct(BSA)BlockonUnsafeOccupation 4

PoorPleadingsImperilPayment–HowInadequateand

UnparticularisedHeadsofLossCanLeadtoStrikeOut

WilsonandanothervHB(SWA)Ltd 6

BSA–BuildingLiabilityOrdersintheContextofNonresidential

Buildings? 11

InItTogether:LessonsFromtheEdgewaterRCODecision 13

ExpertCorner:FireSafetyCases:TheExpertYouNeedMightNotBe

theOneYouExpect 15

KeyLegalTopics:WhatDoHotels/HigherRiskBuildingsNeedToBe

AwareOf? 17

QuickGuide:ElectronicCommunicationsCode2017 19

Pleasefeelfreetosharewithyourcontacts–wewelcomefeedbackandsuggestionsforothertopicsthatyouwouldliketoseecoveredinfutureeditions.

Theopinionsexpressedinthisupdatearethoseoftheauthor(s)anddonotreflecttheviewsofthefirm,itsclients,oranyofitsortheirrespectiveaffiliates.Thearticlesinthisupdateareforgeneralinformationpurposesandarenotintendedtobeandshouldnotbetakenaslegaladvice.

©SquirePattonBoggs.AllRightsReserved2026

1

OPSSEnforcementActionsforConstructionProductsBetween1April2025and30

September2025

TheOfficeforProductSafetyandStandards(OPSS)haspublishedalistofenforcementactionstakenbetweenAprilandSeptember2025inresponsetononcompliantconstructionproductsorconstructionproductswithasafety

risk(OPSSEnforcementReport).TheOPSSisthenationalregulatorforconstructionproducts,anditsenforcementactionsupplementstheseriesofreformsintroducedundertheBuildingSafetyAct2022(BSA2022)whichintendsto“provideastrongerandclearerframeworkfornationaloversightofconstructionproducts”,forwhichweconsideredtheimplicationsfortheconstructionsector,inourlastBuildingSafetyF(ACT)snewsletter.

Inthisupdate,weexplorethenatureoftheactiontakenbytheOPSSinrelationtononcompliantconstructionproducts,andwhatitmightentailforbusinessesoperatingintheconstructionsector.Notably,theOPSSissuedprohibition

noticestomanufacturersofglass,includingballisticandbullet-resistantsafetyglassandthermallytoughenedglass,

andtimber-basedplywood.Itisperhapsnotsurprising,giventhepolicyintentionsoftheBSA2022,thatthemajorityofactiontakenbytheOPSSseemstorelatetoproductsthatarewidelyusedinbuildingandcivilengineeringworksandareintendedtohaveenhancedsafetyfeatures,suchastoughenedglass.

Ineachcase,theOPSSissuedtheprohibitionnoticeundertheexistinglegislationgoverningconstructionproducts,namelytheConstructionProductsRegulations2013,andtheprohibitionnoticeprohibitedthesupplyofthespecifiedproduct.Acommonfailingwasthatthemanufacturerwasunabletoprovideadeclarationofperformance(DoP)inrelationtotheproductandthattheproductwasnotmanufacturedinaccordancewiththecorrectfactoryproductioncontroltests,asdescribedinthedesignatedstandardfortheproduct.

Itisinterestingtonotethat,whencomparingtheOPSSEnforcementReportagainstthepreviousreportcovering

October2024toMarch2025,inwhichonlyoneprohibitionnoticewasservedinrespectofaconstructionproduct,

thereappearstobeatrendoftheOPSStakingincreasedenforcementactionagainstconstructionproducts,althoughitispossiblethattheseactionsarearesultofaspecificenforcementcampaignorintelligencerelatingtofailingsofthesetypesofproduct.

TheOPSSEnforcementReportservesasaremindertobusinessesinvolvedinmanufacturing,importing,distributingorsellingconstructionproductsthattheyshouldensurethey:

•RetainDoPrecordsfortheproductstheysupply

•CheckthatDoPsareintheformatrequiredundertherelevantEUregulation

•HaveproceduresinplacetoensurethattheycanproducethecopyDoPsuponrequestfromtheOPSS

•Familiarisethemselveswiththerequirementsoftherelevantdesignatedstandard(s)

NicolaSmith

Partner,Birmingham

T+441212223230

Enicola.smith@

ThankstoAbigailHarcombe,traineesolicitorin

ourBirminghamoffice,forhercontributiontothisarticle.

2

UpdatesonFlatEntranceFireDoorsandtheResidentialEvacuationPlansRegulations

InlightofgovernmentconcernsregardingamisunderstandingonwhenfiredoorsrequirereplacementundertheFireSafety(England)Regulations2022(theRegulations),thegovernmenthasupdateditsfiredoorguidance.

TheRegulationsapplytohigh-riseresidentialbuildings(atleast18metresabovegroundleveloratleastsevenstoreys);however,theprovisionsrelatingtofiredoorchecksapplymorebroadlytoincludeanybuildingthatcontainstwoormoresetsofdomesticpremisesandisabove11metresinheight.Checksmustbeundertakenannuallyforentrancesto

domesticpremises,andeverythreemonthsforcommunaldoors.

ThegovernmentwasconcernedthatthescopeandintentoftheRegulationshadbeenmisinterpretedwithregardtothesefiredoorchecks,suchthatleaseholderswere

incorrectlybeingadvisedtoreplaceflatentrancedoorsthatwerenotmanufacturedandcertificatedinaccordancewithcurrentstandardsfornewfire-resistingdoors.

Theguidanceclarifiesthat,inmostcircumstances,adoorthatsatisfiedthestandardsforaflatentrancefiredooratthetimetheblockwasbuilt,orthatthedoorwasmanufactured,

continuestobeappropriateprovidedthedoorisundamagedandthatthereareno

excessivegapsbetweenthedoorandtheframe.Itstatesthatthe“absenceofintumescentstripsandsmokeseals,andtheabsenceofanyformofcertificationforthedoor,doesnotimplythatthedoorisunfitforpurpose.”

Inadditiontothephysicalrisk-reductionmeasuresthatareneededinrelationtohigh-riseresidentialbuildings,theupcomingFireSafety(ResidentialEvacuationPlans)(England)Regulations2025(REPRegulations)createseveralnewexpressduties,includingto

conductperson-centredriskassessmentsof,andcreateevacuationplansfor,individualresidentswhowouldhavedifficultyevacuatingabuildingwithoutassistanceinthe

eventofafire“asaresultofacognitiveorphysicalimpairmentorcondition”(RelevantResidents).

TheREPRegulationscameintoforceon6April2026andapplytobuildingsthatcontaintwoormoresetsofdomesticpremisesandareatleast18metresinheightabovegroundlevel,orhaveatleastsevenstoreys,oraremorethan11metresinheightabovegroundlevelandhaveasimultaneousevacuationstrategy(SpecifiedResidentialBuildings).

BeforetheREPRegulations,therewasnoexpresslegaldutyregardingriskassessmentof,andevacuationmeasuresfor,individuals,andsomemayrecallthatthePAS79-2(housingfireriskassessment)standard(nowsupersededbyBS9792:2025)waswithdrawnin2021overcriticismsaboutitscontentrelatingtopersonalemergencyevacuationplans(PEEPs)fordisabledresidents.

TheREPRegulationsmarkafirmreturntotheuseofsuchplansinSpecifiedResidentialBuildings,inaccordancewiththerecommendationsofPhase2oftheGrenfellTower

Inquiry.

TheREPRegulationsimposenewdutiesonresponsiblepersons(ResponsiblePersons)to:

•UsereasonableendeavourstoidentifyRelevantResidents

•Offeraperson-centredfireriskassessmenttoeachRelevantResident,andifconsentedto,ensuretheriskassessmentisundertakenandkeepthemunderreview

•Implementreasonableandproportionatemitigatingmeasuresonthebasisthatthecostsofanysuchmeasuresarebornebytheresponsiblepersonand/orbytheresidentsofthebuilding(orboth)

•CreateanemergencyevacuationstatementsettingoutwhattheRelevantResidentshoulddointheeventofafire(ifagreedto)

•Createabuildingemergencyevacuationplanandreviewitannually

•ProvidetotheFireandRescueAuthoritythebuildingemergencyevacuationplanandinformationonthelocationandlevelofassistancerequired(wherethatinformationhasbeenexplicitlyconsentedtobeingshared)

ResponsiblePersonsshouldfamiliarisethemselveswiththeREPRegulationsandmayfindithelpfultoutiliseResponsiblePersonstoolkitandPEEPsGuidancetosupportcompliance.

OliverBristow

Associate,Manchester

T+441618305332

Eoliver.bristow@

ThankstoAbigailHarcombe,traineesolicitorinourBirminghamoffice,forhercontributiontothisarticle.

3

ConsultationontheGeneralSafety

RequirementforConstructionProducts

TheMinistryofHousing,CommunitiesandLocalGovernmenthaslaunchedaconsultationontheGeneralSafety

Requirement(“GSR”)forConstructionProducts(the“Consultation”).TheConsultationfollowstheConstruction

ProductsReformGreenPaper,whichwediscussedinournewsletter,andisintendedtooperatealongsidebroaderreformssetoutintheConstructionProductsReformWhitePaper;formingpartofthewiderprogrammeofreformtotheconstructionproductsregulatoryregime.

TheConsultationseeksstakeholders’viewsontheintroductionofaGSRforconstructionproductsthatarenotalreadycoveredbyadesignatedstandardortechnicalassessment.Theaimofthereformistoensurethatconstruction

productsplacedontheUKmarketaresafe.

KeyproposalsoftheConsultationinclude:

•Mandatoryriskassessmentsforallrelevantproducts,coveringintendedandreasonablyforeseeableconditionsofuse.

•Strengthenedproductinformationrequirementsthatincludeinformationontheproduct’sintendeduse,technicaldata,installationinstructions,safetywarningsandrestrictions.

•Enhancedlabellingandtraceability,includinguniqueproductidentifiers,manufacturerand(whereapplicable)importerdetailsanddigitalinformationaccess;thisistoensuretraceabilityofproducts,whichiskeyforeffectiveproductrecall.

•Recordkeeping,includingtheretentionofriskassessments,productdocumentation,andsafetyincidentrecordsfor10years.

•Responsibilityinthesupplychaintoensurethatconstructionproductsarestoredandtransportedinwaysthatmaintaintheirsafetyandintegrity.

•Obligationsforimportersanddistributors(includingmerchants)toverifycompliance,maintainrecords,andimplementcontrolstopreventunsafeproductsfromenteringthemarket.

•Enhancedpowersforthenationalregulator(andlocalauthoritytradingstandards)toincludemarketsurveillance,investigatorypowers,andtheabilitytoissuesuspensionnotices,recalls,andcivilpenalties.

TheConsultationrunsfrom25February2026to20May2026.StakeholdersareinvitedtorespondviaCitizenSpaceorbyemailingtheirresponse

toConstructionProducts@.uk.TheGovernment

aimstointroducethetimescalesastowhenthebillwillbecomelaw,butitisexpecteditwillbeverysoon,giventheproposedtimescalessetforremediationofalldefectivebuildingsinEngland.

NicolaSmith

Partner,Birmingham

T+441212223230

Enicola.smith@

ThankstoAbigailHarcombe,traineesolicitorin

ourBirminghamoffice,forhercontributiontothisarticle.

BuildingSafetyAct(BSA)BlockonUnsafeOccupation

AFirstofItsKindandUnlikelytheLast

TherecentcaseofHealthandSafetyExecutivevIntegritasPropertyGroup(IPG)Ltd[

2025

]EWHC2613(TCC)establishesaprecedentthatinteriminjunctionswithoutnoticebytheHealthandSafetyExecutive(HSE)maybegrantedinrespectofHigherRiskBuildings(HRB)deemedtobeunsafe.

TheFacts

TheHSEbroughtinteriminjunctiveproceedingsintheHighCourtagainstthedefendantsIntegritasPropertyGroup

(IPG)topreventtheoccupationofa244-roomstudentaccommodationdevelopmentinNewcastle-under-Lymeknownas“Deacon’sYard”.NoticeofthisapplicationwasservedonIPGwithlessthan24hours’noticepursuanttothe

proposedriskofIPGimmediatelypermittingoccupation.

BuildingcontrolwasfirstgrantedtoIPGinNovember2015,andfiresafetydefectswerefirstdiscoveredinSeptember2022.BuildingconsentsthenformallyraisedconcernsregardingfiresafetydefectsduringameetingwithIPGin

October2022.AdditionalconcernsregardingtheconditionofthebuildingandthestandardofworkmanshipresultedinacontraventionnoticebeingservedtoIPGinMarch2024.

InMay2024,itwasdeemedthatdespiteongoingconstructionthecontraventionnoticehadnotbeenrectified,andthatissuessuchasinadequacyofcavitybarriersandfixingofbrickworkremainedunresolved.Subsequently,buildingcontrolwasrevoked,andacancellationnoticewasservedon11July2024.Shortlyafter,evidencesurfacedthat

constructionworkswereongoingandastopnoticewasalsoserved.

InJune2025,concernswereraisedregardingaseriesofadvertisementsonlinelistingDeacon’sYardasreadyfor

occupationinAugust2025.DespiteadirectorofIPGbeinginterviewedundercaution,confirmingtheirunderstandingthatoccupationofDeacon’sYardwithoutacompletioncertificatewouldbeacriminaloffenceinlinewithSection35oftheBuildingAct1984andsections76to77oftheBSA.Deacon’sYardcontinuedtobeadvertisedtostudentsforthe2025-2026academicyear.

GroundsforInterimInjunctiveRelief

Indeterminingtheappropriatenessofinteriminjunctiveproceedings,theHighCourtconsideredtheprinciplesfoundinAmericanCyanamid1thosebeing,(i)ifthereisaseriousissuetobetried,(ii)thebalanceofconveniencebetweenbothparties(iii)ifdamageswouldotherwisebeanadequateremedy,(iv)thestatusquoand(v)meritsofthecase.TheHighCourtfoundthattheimminentriskofoccupationatDeacon’sYardsatisfiedtheseriousissuerequirement.

1AmericanCyanamidCovEthiconLtd[1975]A.C.396[1975]2W.L.R.316

4

TheHighCourtalsoconcludedthatonbalance,theinjusticeofpotentiallyinterferingwithIPG’srentalarrangementswasoutweighedbytheneedtoprotectoccupantsandvisitors,whichwerebelievedtoimminentlyoccupyDeacon’sYard.Assuch,thebalanceofconveniencetestwasalsosatisfied.Similarly,healthandsafetyconcernsprovidedthatdamagescouldnotbeanadequateremedyinplaceofsafety.AsDeacon’sYardwasunoccupiedatthetimeofthishearing,theHighCourtalsostatedthatthestatusquoshouldremainthesame.Consideringalloftheabovefactors,alongsidethecommercialrealitythataninjunctionpostoccupationwouldbemoredifficult,theAmericanCyanamidtestwasseeminglymet.

Despitethecourtsettinganurgentreturndate,nocrossundertakingfordamageswasrequiredbytheHSEfollowingtheSupremeCourtprecedentofTheFinancialServicesAuthorityvSinaloaGoldPLC.2Morenotably,theHighCourt

alsopermittedtheHSEtobringinteriminjunctiveproceedings,asleadregulator,inplaceofthelocalauthoritywhoareordinarilyresponsibleforinjunctionapplicationsinaccordancewiththeLocalGovernmentAct1972.

ASignofThingstoCome?KeyTakeaways

•TheHighCourtgrantingpermissionfortheHSEtobringinteriminjunctionsinthismannerisagenuinefirst.

•Avoidingtherequirementforacross-undertakingindamagessignificantlylowerstheriskthresholdfortheHSEinbringingfutureclaims.

•InthewakeoftheGrenfellTowertragedy,thestrictermanagementofunsafebuildingsisstillreverberatingthroughthecourts,andthisislikelytocontinuedoingso.

•TheGrenfellTragedyremainsapoignantreminderoftheimportanceofbuildings,followingwhich,therehasbeenacleardirectionoftraveltowardsearlyinterventionfromtheHSEinitsregulatorycapacity.

•TheBSAandBuildingSafety(Wales)Bill,alongsidetheincomingBuildingSafetyLevyandtheConstruction

Products(Amendment)Regulations2025suggestthatwiderregulationisattheforefrontofParliament’spolicyandapproach.Asthisthemehassurvivedchangesingovernment,itmaybethecasethatmorestringentregulationisthenewnormalfortheconstructionsector.

•Particularlyconsideringthecommercial,reputationalandpotentiallycriminalsanctionsforbreachingtheBSA,preventionisbetterthancure.

JamesLewis

Associate,Manchester

T+441618305000

Ejames.lewis@

ThankstoSammyElDabba,traineesolicitorinthe

Construction&EngineeringteaminourManchesteroffice,forhiscontributiontothisarticle.

2FinancialServicesAuthorityvSinaloaGoldPlc[

2013

]UKSC11[

2013

]2W.L.R.678.

5

6

PoorPleadingsImperilPayment–HowInadequateandUnparticularisedHeadsofLossCanLeadtoStrikeOutWilsonandanothervHB(SWA)Ltd

OnewouldbeentitledtoassumethatwhencasesreachtheCourtofAppeal,lawyersarenecessarilywranglingovercomplexandesoteric

pointsoflaw.Alas,weoccasionallyhaveacasereachtheCourtofAppealthatrequirestheconfirmationofcommonsense.Inthelatesteditionof“wasthatnotobviousbefore?”,thecaseofWilsonandanothervHB(SWA)Ltd[

2025

]dealtwiththechinscratchingissueofwhether

particularisedheadsoflossweresoinadequatethattheycanbestruckoutbythecourt.

TheOriginalClaim

DefectswerediscoveredattheCelestiaDevelopmentinCardiff,followingitsconstructionfrom2004-2007.RedrowHomes(SouthWales)Limitedwerethedevelopers,withLaing

O’Rourkeasthedesignandbuildcontractors.Bythetimeoftheclaim,Redrow’srightsandliabilitieswerevestedinthedefendant(HB(SWA)Ltd,“HB”).

Theclaimant(theWilsons),oneof41leaseholders,andthemanagementcompany(CMCL)asthe42ndclaimant,weresuingfordamagesforbreachofcontract(regardingthebreachofimpliedtermsintheleases)andbreachofthedutyowedunders.1DefectivePremisesAct1972(DPA).

Thatworkhadbeenagreedtobedone,buthadyetbeencompletedandaccordingly,therewasnoreasontosubmitaclaimforrectificationcostssincetheseworkswerealreadyduetobecarriedoutandthereforenoclaimexisted.

TheWilsonsownedtwooftheflats,whichtheyhadgiftedtotheirchildreninNovember2024,afterthedefectshadbeendiscovered.

TheWilsons’scheduleofloss,preparedbythemselves,wasdramaticallyoutoflinewithalltheotherclaimants’schedules.

Inanup-and-downjourneybefittingofthenauticalnurseryrhymethattheirdocumentwaspresumablyinspiredby,theclaimantseventuallylandedonare-re-re-amended(RRRA)

particularsofclaim,whichsetoutthefollowingheadsoflossatparagraph25ofthepleading:

•Diminutioninthevalueoftheflats,andthattheclaimantswouldsuffersuchdiminutionnotwithstandingtheremedyofthedefectiveworks

•Lossofrentalincome

•Damagetotheclaimants’healthbyreasonofthedevelopmentofmouldanddampwithintheflats

•Inconvenienceanddistress

•Decantingcosts(includingthecostsofalternativeaccommodationandstorage);iftheclaimantshadtobedecantedfromthebuildingsduringtheremedialworks

7

Butstayingtruetotheirname,MrandMrsWilsoncastawaythisframeworkandinsteadadvancednineheadsoflossintheirscheduleofloss:

•Totalcapitallosses

•Investmentloss

•Reinvestmentloss

•Servicechargeloss

•Rentalincomeloss

•Securedborrowingloss

•Interestloss

•Indemnity

•Taxation

Thedefendantappliedtostrikeoutmostofthisscheduleofloss(bartheservicechargelossandtheinterestloss),arguingtheallegedlosseswerenotpleadedintheparticularsofclaim,oralternativelythattheywere“clearlyunrecoverableorpurelyspeculativeor

imaginarylosses”,andpleaded“sovaguelyandunclearlythattheycouldnotsupportanamendment,evenif(asisnotthecase)anamendmentweresought”.

ThejudgeintheTechnologyandConstructionCourttooktheviewthat,thoughitisnotthecourt’splacetomakeadecisiononwheretheprobabilitiesliewhentherearedisputed

questionsoffact,thecourtisentitledtorejectacase“evenonasummarybasis”,whereitis“clearthatafactualcaseisself-contradictoryorinherentlyincredibleorwhereitiscontradictedbythecontemporaneousdocuments”.

Furthermore,inapithyrebuketotheargumentthatthecourtshouldconsiderthatfurtherevidencemaycometolightindisclosure,thejudgecommentedthat“thecourtwillnotbedissuadedfromgivingjudgmentbymereMicawberism,theunsubstantiatedhopethat‘somethingmightturnup’”.

Thejudgenotedthattheprinciplewasthatevenifalosswereinprincipleavalidheadof

claim,theclaimantshouldhaveparticulariseditandsoughtpermissiontoamendandalsoconsideredthattherewasnosignificantdifferencebetweendamagesforbreachofcontractanddamagesrecoverableforbreachoftheDPA(butnotthatthiswouldalwaysbethe

case).

SevenheadsoftheWilsons’headsoflosswerethereforestruckoutnamely:

•Totalcapitallosses

•Investmentloss

•Reinvestmentloss

•Rentalincomeloss

•Securedborrowingloss

•Indemnityfortenantsreclaimingrent

•Taxation/inheritancetaxloss

Thesevenheadsstruckoutweretheadditional,unpleadedorspeculativeitems,butservicechargelossandinterestlosswereexplicitlynotamongthem.

Inthescheduleoflosstablereproducedinthejudgment,“servicechargeloss”waslistedasaseparateheadwithfiguresforbothflats:

•£8,989.11for339VegaHouse•£14,032.05for354VegaHouse

ThisheadoflosswasproperlypleadedwithintheexistingframeworkoftheRRRA

particularsofclaim.Itwasnotchallengedinthestrike-outapplication.Thedefendantsaccepteditinprinciple.

TheWilsonsdulyappealedthistotheCourtofAppeal.

TheCourtofAppeal’sVerdict

TheappealconcernedwhetherthejudgewasrighttostrikeouttheWilsons’scheduleofloss,inparticularthesevenhighlyunconventionalandtheunpleadedheadsofloss:

1.Totalcapitallosses

2.Investmentloss

3.Reinvestmentloss

4.Rentalincomeloss

5.Securedborrowingloss

6.Indemnityfortenantsreclaimingrent

7.Taxation/inheritancetaxloss

TheCourtofAppealheldthatthejudgewascorrecttostrikeoutallseven.

TheCourtofAppealnotedattheoutsetthatthescheduleoflosswasdraftedbyMr

Wilsonhimself,and“eventhoughMrWilsonisasolicitor,thecourtcannotexpecthimto

producethesamesortofdocumentthatabarristerwould”.However,thejudgewenton

tocommentthat“itmusthavebeenapparenttoMrWilsonthathisscheduleoflosswas

overcomplicated,unclearandlackingineventhebasicinformationnecessarytoidentifyandsupportthedisputedheadsofloss”.

ItwashighlightedbytheCourtofAppealinitiallythatinparagraphsixoftheWilsons’

introductorypreamble,itwasnotedthattheWilsonsgiftedthetwoflatstotheirtwo

daughters,andthat“noconsequences,letaloneanyloss,areallegedinthescheduletoarisefromthatevent”.

8

TheotherfactsnotedbytheCourtofAppeal,whichtheytookintoaccountindeterminingthevalidityofthepleadingsincluded:

•Paragraphs12-19,regardingthe“CapitalValues”loss,whichsimplycontainedgeneralinformationaboutresidentialpropertyvaluesintheCardiffBayarea

•Paragraph16,whichsaidthattheWilsons’flatsbecameunmortgageablebyearly2016

•Paragraph17,whicharguedthatdiscoveryof2019defectshadfurtherimpactontheflats’saleprice

•Paragraph18,whichsaidthatthedefectsfoundin2024“canonlyhaveafurthernegativeimpact”

•Itreferredtoanexpertvaluer,butthensaidthatevidencewouldbeprovidedoncedirectionsweregiven

•Paragraph20-22,whichdealtwiththeflats’rentalvalues

•ItidentifiedtherateforthetwoflatsonlyinJuly/October2014(thetimeofthepurchases)andNovember2024

•Paragraph21,whichgavegeneralinformationaboutthegrowthinrentalvaluesinCardiff

•Paragraph22,whichdealtwith“taximpacts”,andsuggestedthesaleofflatsatan

earlierdatewouldhaveallowedtheWilsonstogifttheproceedstotheirchildrentobuyhomes,andlessenedriskofthegiftsbeingsubjecttoinheritancetax

OftheheadsoflossoutlinedintheWilsons’scheduleofloss,onlyfivehadafiguregiventothematall(theothersidentifiednoclaimfigureattributabletothehead).Andofthosefive,theCourtofAppealnotedthatnonewere“brokendownorexplainedinanyway”.

TheprimaryaspectoftheWilson’sappealwasthattheyshouldhavebeenallowedto

amendtheirScheduleofLossbywayofamendment.TheycitedKimvPark[

2011

],howeverthejudgedistinguishedthepresentcasefromthisastheappellantshadnotprovidedanyproposedamendments,soitwasthereforedifficulttoconcludethat“thereisareason

tobelievethattheclaimantwouldbeinapositiontoputthedefectright”,ifnoproposedamendmentwasactuallyprovided.

Thejudgealsoheldthatthepositionondamagesfordefectiveworkgenerallyisthat:

•Aclaimantisentitledtoclaimtheamountbywhichtheworkisworthlessbyreasonofthedefects(asisthecaseinatraditionaldiminutioninvalueclaim)

•Thisisusuallybestmeasuredbyreferencetothereasonablecostofreinstatementworks

•Thisclaimaccrueswhethertheassetinquestionissubsequentlysoldordestroyed

However,iftheoriginalcontractorisabletoreturntocarryouttheworks,theowners

cannotclaimthecostsoftheseastheywillnothaveincurredthecostsorliabilityforthem,

butthisdoesnotmeanthattheownerwillnotsufferresidualdiminutioninvalueeven

afterworkshavebeencompleted(a“blight”claim),and“aclaimantwillnormallybeabletorecover(subjecttoproof)lossofanyrentalincomeandotherdamagesthatarenottooremote,andwhichcanbeproperlyidentifiedasflowingfromthebreaches”.

ThejudgeinitiallyheldthatthesevenheadsoflossthatwerestruckoutwereallindeedunpleadedclaimsastheydidnotconformtothepleadedframeworkoftheRRRA

particularsofclaim.Hestatedthat“itisimpermissiblefordamagestobeclaimedina

scheduleoflosswherethebasisoftheclaimisnotexplained,orevenreferredtointhestatementofclaim”,andthatthisis“att