Cladding Liability Claims — 

Cladding liability claims are legal claims arising from defective, unsafe, non-compliant, improperly designed, improperly installed, or inadequately maintained external wall and cladding systems of buildings.

The issue became especially significant after the Grenfell Tower fire, but cladding liability is much broader than combustible panels. Claims may concern:

• combustible aluminium composite material (ACM);
• combustible insulation;
• defective cavity barriers;
• inadequate fire-stopping;
• inadequate fixings;
• water penetration;
• corrosion;
• structural defects;
• poor workmanship;
• defective design;
• non-compliance with building regulations;
• failure to warn;
• negligent inspection;
• inadequate maintenance;
• defective remediation.

In modern litigation, liability can potentially extend across the developer, architect, contractor, subcontractor, manufacturer, building owner, landlord, designer, surveyor and other responsible parties, depending upon the contractual and statutory framework.

The UK authorities are particularly developed in this area because of the post-Grenfell litigation. Recent cases also demonstrate that liability can arise even where the cladding is not physically damaged but presents an unacceptable fire-safety risk.

1. Meaning of Cladding

Cladding is the external layer or system attached to a building's structural envelope.

It may serve several purposes:

• weather protection;
• thermal insulation;
• architectural appearance;
• energy efficiency;
• moisture control;
• acoustic performance;
• fire protection.

A modern external wall system may contain several components:

Structural wall

↓

Insulation

↓

Cavity

↓

Fire barriers

↓

Membrane

↓

Support/fixing system

↓

Cladding panels

Therefore, a "cladding defect" can involve a single component or the interaction of several components.

2. What Is a Cladding Liability Claim?

A cladding liability claim generally alleges that a person or organization responsible for a building:

1. designed an unsafe system;
2. specified an inappropriate material;
3. supplied defective material;
4. installed the system incorrectly;
5. failed to comply with applicable regulations;
6. failed to warn about known risks;
7. failed to inspect adequately;
8. failed to maintain the system; or
9. failed to undertake necessary remediation.

The claimant may seek:

• repair costs;
• replacement costs;
• investigation costs;
• temporary safety measures;
• diminution in property value;
• consequential losses;
• loss of use;
• alternative accommodation costs;
• financing costs;
• damages for physical injury or death;
• contribution from other responsible parties.

3. Principal Types of Cladding Defects

A. Combustibility

The cladding or insulation may contribute to rapid fire spread.

This was a central issue following Grenfell. The Supreme Court has noted that unsafe external cladding was a major reason the Grenfell fire spread so rapidly.

B. Defective Fire Barriers

Cavity barriers may be:

• missing;
• incorrectly positioned;
• incorrectly fixed;
• damaged;
• improperly specified.

This can allow fire to travel within the external wall cavity.

C. Defective Installation

Even a compliant material can become unsafe because of:

• incorrect fixing;
• gaps;
• inadequate joints;
• incorrect sequencing;
• improper cavity construction.

D. Defective Design

An architect or designer may have specified an external wall system that was inappropriate for:

• building height;
• building use;
• location;
• fire risk;
• environmental conditions.

E. Water Ingress

Cladding may allow:

• rainwater penetration;
• damp;
• corrosion;
• deterioration of insulation;
• damage to structural elements.

F. Structural Failure

Panels may become detached because of:

• defective anchors;
• inadequate fixings;
• corrosion;
• wind-loading errors;
• defective support structures.

4. Legal Bases of Liability

Cladding claims can arise under several legal theories.

1. Breach of contract

A contractor may have promised to:

• design;
• supply;
• install;
• test;
• certify

a compliant cladding system.

Failure to do so may constitute breach of contract.

2. Negligence

A professional or contractor may owe a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care.

3. Statutory breach

Building regulations and fire-safety legislation may establish relevant obligations.

4. Product liability

Manufacturers may face claims where defective products cause damage or injury, subject to the applicable statutory framework.

5. Professional negligence

Architects, engineers and fire consultants may face liability for defective design, specification or advice.

6. Landlord-and-tenant liability

The allocation of responsibility depends heavily on the lease.

The 2026 Essendi judgment demonstrates how a landlord's contractual covenants can require remediation of dangerous cladding.

5. Case Law

Case 1 — Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 1813 (TCC)

This is one of the most important modern cladding-liability decisions.

Facts

Martlet Homes owned five residential tower blocks in Gosport.

During refurbishment, Mulalley had installed an external wall insulation system containing expanded polystyrene (EPS).

Following the Grenfell fire, investigations identified serious concerns concerning:

• combustible EPS insulation;
• inadequate fire barriers;
• inadequate fixing;
• the suitability of the external wall system.

Martlet incurred substantial costs investigating and replacing the cladding system.

Decision

The Technology and Construction Court found Mulalley liable and awarded approximately £8 million in damages. The successful claim included costs relating to investigation, monitoring and replacement/remediation.

Important principles

The case demonstrates that:

• contractors can be liable for defective cladding design;
• installation defects can create independent liability;
• compliance with applicable building requirements is highly significant;
• the claimant must establish causation;
• reasonable remediation costs can be recoverable.

Importance

Martlet Homes is a leading authority for determining who bears the cost of replacing dangerous cladding.

6. Case 2 — Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Sharpfibre Ltd [2020] EWHC 1309 (TCC)

This case involved defective cladding at a Premier Inn hotel at Bedford Riverside.

Sharpfibre had been engaged to undertake work involving:

• structural framing;
• external walling;
• external cladding.

Following Grenfell, concerns arose about the cladding and insulation used at the hotel.

Bouygues claimed that the materials were:

• non-compliant with the Building Regulations;
• non-compliant with the subcontract;
• defective.

The claim exceeded £1.95 million. A contribution claim was also brought against the architect.

Legal significance

The case illustrates the contractual chain commonly found in construction projects:

Developer

→ Main contractor

→ Subcontractor

→ Architect/designer

→ Manufacturer/supplier

A claimant may therefore need to determine which contractual relationship creates the relevant obligation.

Principle

A cladding dispute may require the court to examine:

• contractual specifications;
• design responsibility;
• Building Regulations;
• professional appointments;
• novation agreements;
• subcontract obligations;
• causation.

7. Case 3 — URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21

This Supreme Court decision is highly important to the modern law of construction-defect liability.

The case arose from claims concerning serious defects in residential developments discovered following investigations after Grenfell.

The Supreme Court considered the interaction between:

• construction defects;
• professional negligence;
• developers;
• Building Regulations;
• limitation;
• the Building Safety Act 2022.

The Court's judgment explains that post-Grenfell investigations uncovered widespread safety problems, including unsafe cladding and other serious fire and structural defects.

Importance for cladding claims

The case is important because cladding disputes frequently involve historic defects.

The claimant may discover the defect:

years after construction.

The legal issue then becomes:

• When did the cause of action arise?
• When did the claimant know about the defect?
• Does the relevant statutory limitation period apply?
• Can a developer recover from professional advisers?
• How does the Building Safety Act interact with pre-existing rights?

Principle

Construction-defect liability cannot be analysed solely by looking at the date when the defect was discovered. The contractual, tortious and statutory limitation regimes must be considered carefully.

8. Case 4 — Essendi UK Hotels 2 Ltd v London Property Company Ltd [2026] EWHC 1354 (TCC)

This is a particularly important 2026 cladding case.

The dispute concerned a multi-storey hotel in Wembley containing Category 3 ACM cladding with a polyethylene core.

Experts agreed that the cladding presented an intolerable fire risk and needed removal.

Issue

The central question was:

Who was contractually responsible for removing and replacing the dangerous cladding?

The tenant relied upon lease covenants requiring the landlord to:

• keep the exterior in good condition;
• comply with relevant legal obligations.

Decision

The High Court held the landlord liable under the relevant lease covenants and ordered remediation.

Importantly, the court concluded that in the post-Grenfell context, a covenant requiring a multi-storey building used for accommodation to be kept in good condition could, depending upon its wording and circumstances, require removal and replacement of dangerous cladding even though the cladding was not simply suffering from ordinary physical disrepair.

Importance

This case demonstrates that:

"Defect" and "physical disrepair" are not necessarily the same thing.

A building can be physically intact but nevertheless legally require remediation because the external wall system creates an unacceptable fire-safety risk.

9. Case 5 — Into Nominee One Ltd v Study Group UK Ltd [2026] EWHC 1201 (TCC)

This 2026 Technology and Construction Court decision concerned fire-safety cladding defects that affected the use of a property.

The case is significant because the existence of serious cladding/fire-safety defects may affect the fitness and intended use of a building.

The RICS summary identifies the case as involving a claim exceeding £9 million and issues concerning whether fire-safety defects made the property unfit for its intended use.

Importance

The case illustrates that cladding defects can create consequences extending beyond the physical cost of replacement.

They can potentially affect:

• commercial use;
• occupation;
• property value;
• contractual performance;
• business interruption;
• financing;
• leasing arrangements.

10. Case 6 — East Village / 2025 Court of Appeal cladding proceedings

Post-Grenfell litigation concerning East Village demonstrated how non-ACM cladding systems can also constitute serious "relevant defects."

The Court of Appeal proceedings concerned buildings where investigations identified serious defects in the design and construction of the external wall systems.

Importance

The case illustrates a crucial point:

Cladding liability is not limited to the exact ACM system used at Grenfell.

Other external wall systems may create relevant fire-safety defects because of:

• defective design;
• inadequate fire barriers;
• combustible materials;
• construction deficiencies.

11. Case 7 — Marlborough House / Martlet-related post-Grenfell principles

The wider post-Grenfell construction litigation has reinforced that liability can involve several layers of responsibility.

For example:

Developer

may pursue:

Main contractor

who may pursue:

Subcontractor

who may pursue:

Architect / consultant / manufacturer.

This creates contribution and indemnity claims.

The Bouygues litigation illustrates precisely this multi-party structure, including contribution proceedings against the architect.

12. Case 8 — Grenfell Tower litigation

The Grenfell Tower tragedy itself generated extensive civil litigation concerning:

• combustible ACM cladding;
• insulation;
• cavity barriers;
• design;
• procurement;
• testing;
• certification;
• building management;
• fire safety.

The Supreme Court's URS v BDW judgment records that the rapid spread of the Grenfell fire was substantially associated with unsafe external cladding and that subsequent investigations identified widespread defects in high-rise buildings.

The Grenfell litigation therefore serves as the central factual background for modern UK cladding liability law.

13. Causation in Cladding Claims

One of the most difficult issues is causation.

Suppose:

• the cladding is defective;
• the building owner spends £10 million replacing it.

The claimant still must establish why that expenditure was legally caused by the defendant's breach.

The court may ask:

Question 1

Was the cladding actually defective?

Question 2

Was the defendant responsible for the defect?

Question 3

Did the defect create the relevant risk?

Question 4

Was replacement reasonably necessary?

Question 5

Was the particular remediation scheme reasonable?

Question 6

Would the claimant have incurred the expenditure anyway?

Martlet Homes is particularly important because the court examined whether the costs of monitoring and replacing the system were caused by the contractor's breaches.

14. Remediation Costs

Potential recoverable costs may include:

Investigation

• intrusive surveys;
• fire-risk assessments;
• laboratory testing;
• engineering reports.

Immediate safety measures

• waking watch;
• fire alarms;
• temporary fire measures;
• temporary access restrictions.

Remediation

• removal;
• disposal;
• replacement;
• fire-stopping;
• insulation replacement.

Consequential losses

Depending on the legal basis:

• alternative accommodation;
• loss of rental income;
• loss of business;
• professional fees;
• financing expenses.

But the claimant generally must establish reasonableness, causation and legal recoverability.

15. Betterment Problem

An important issue is betterment.

Suppose the original cladding was defective but relatively inexpensive.

The claimant replaces it with a substantially more expensive modern system.

The defendant may argue:

"You are obtaining a better building than the one you originally contracted for."

Courts therefore examine whether the replacement:

• merely restores compliance;
• provides necessary safety;
• constitutes an improvement;
• is technologically necessary;
• is proportionate to the defect.

The modern remediation framework specifically raises questions about the scope and reasonableness of remediation and betterment.

16. Developer Liability

Developers may be liable where they:

• selected defective systems;
• failed to exercise reasonable care;
• controlled design decisions;
• made representations concerning compliance;
• assumed contractual obligations;
• are subject to statutory remediation obligations.

The Building Safety Act 2022 has significantly changed the legal landscape for qualifying building defects.

17. Contractor Liability

Contractors are commonly exposed where they:

• installed cladding incorrectly;
• ignored design specifications;
• substituted materials;
• failed to install fire barriers;
• failed to comply with building regulations;
• failed to follow manufacturer's instructions.

Martlet Homes provides an especially strong illustration of contractor exposure.

18. Architect and Designer Liability

Architects and designers may face claims where they:

• specified unsuitable materials;
• designed an inadequate wall system;
• failed to identify foreseeable fire risks;
• failed to comply with professional standards;
• improperly certified work.

The contribution proceedings in Bouygues v Sharpfibre demonstrate how design professionals can become involved in contribution claims arising from cladding disputes.

19. Manufacturer Liability

Manufacturers may become liable where:

• the product itself is defective;
• safety information was inadequate;
• warnings were misleading;
• specifications were inaccurate;
• the product was unsuitable for the intended application.

However, manufacturer liability is fact-specific and must be distinguished from liability arising solely because a contractor improperly installed an otherwise compliant product.

20. Landlord Liability

Landlord liability depends heavily upon:

• the lease;
• repairing covenants;
• fire-safety obligations;
• statutory responsibilities;
• the landlord's role as "responsible person";
• the building's use.

Essendi is particularly important because it demonstrates that a landlord's contractual obligations can require remediation of inherently dangerous cladding.

21. Tenant Liability

Tenants can potentially bear responsibility where the lease places obligations upon them concerning:

• repair;
• maintenance;
• alterations;
• compliance;
• fire safety.

But the exact contractual allocation is crucial.

A tenant cannot necessarily be made responsible for an inherent structural or cladding defect simply because it occupies the building.

22. Fire Safety and Cladding

Cladding liability is increasingly integrated with fire-safety law.

A dangerous cladding system can create:

• external fire spread;
• vertical fire spread;
• lateral fire spread;
• falling burning debris;
• smoke hazards;
• evacuation difficulties.

The post-Grenfell approach therefore increasingly treats the external wall as part of the building's overall fire-safety system.

23. "Relevant Defect" Concept

The Building Safety Act framework introduced an important concept of a relevant defect for qualifying buildings.

Broadly, the concept can capture defects that arise from:

• construction;
• conversion;
• refurbishment;

and that create a safety risk.

This significantly expands the practical importance of historic building defects.

24. Limitation

Limitation is often one of the most complicated issues.

A building might have been constructed:

2005

↓

Defect discovered:

2018

↓

Remediation:

2020

↓

Litigation:

2022

The court must determine which limitation regime applies.

Relevant considerations can include:

• contract;
• tort;
• deed;
• statutory extensions;
• date of completion;
• date of discovery;
• knowledge;
• Building Safety Act provisions.

The Supreme Court's URS v BDW litigation is particularly significant for understanding how historic construction defects interact with limitation and statutory changes.

25. Evidence Required

A successful cladding claim often requires extensive technical evidence.

Technical evidence

• EWS assessment;
• fire engineering report;
• materials testing;
• laboratory reports;
• photographs;
• intrusive surveys;
• cavity-barrier inspection.

Contractual evidence

• construction contract;
• subcontract;
• specifications;
• drawings;
• variations;
• warranties;
• certificates.

Regulatory evidence

• building-control records;
• planning documents;
• fire-safety documents;
• completion certificates;
• inspection reports.

Financial evidence

• remediation quotations;
• invoices;
• professional fees;
• alternative accommodation costs;
• loss calculations.

26. Multi-Party Liability

Cladding litigation often involves multiple defendants.

For example:

Developer

↓

Architect

↓

Main Contractor

↓

Cladding Contractor

↓

Manufacturer

↓

Building Owner

↓

Landlord

Each may have different legal responsibilities.

Consequently, litigation may involve:

• contribution claims;
• indemnity claims;
• cross-claims;
• contractual warranties;
• professional negligence;
• statutory claims.

27. Defences to Cladding Claims

Defendants may argue:

No defect

The cladding complies with the applicable requirements.

No breach

The defendant complied with its contractual obligations.

No causation

The claimant's loss resulted from another cause.

Unreasonable remediation

The claimant selected unnecessarily expensive works.

Betterment

The claimant obtained an improvement rather than restoration.

Limitation

The claim was brought too late.

Contractual exclusion

The contract limits or allocates liability.

Contributory negligence

The claimant contributed to the loss.

Lack of duty

The defendant did not owe the relevant duty.

28. Damages

Potential damages can include:

The claimant must still establish that the particular loss is legally recoverable.

29. Cladding Liability and Human Rights

Where unsafe buildings threaten residents, litigation can also intersect with:

• right to life;
• physical safety;
• home;
• property;
• dignity.

However, the precise human-rights cause of action depends upon the jurisdiction and circumstances.

Cladding litigation is primarily a construction/property/fire-safety field, but serious safety risks can generate broader public-law consequences.

30. Current Development: Liability Beyond Residential Buildings

An important modern development is that cladding liability is not confined to residential towers.

The Essendi case involved a hotel, demonstrating that dangerous ACM cladding can create contractual and fire-safety obligations in commercial accommodation buildings as well.

This is important because hotels and other commercial buildings can involve:

• sleeping occupants;
• public access;
• complex evacuation;
• landlord-tenant structures.

31. Core Doctrinal Test

A useful way of analysing any cladding liability claim is:

Step 1 — Identify the defect

What exactly is wrong?

Step 2 — Identify the responsible party

Who designed, supplied, installed, approved or maintained it?

Step 3 — Identify the legal duty

Was the duty contractual, statutory, tortious or professional?

Step 4 — Establish breach

Did the defendant fail to meet the required standard?

Step 5 — Establish causation

Did that breach cause the relevant safety risk or loss?

Step 6 — Establish necessity

Were the remediation measures reasonably necessary?

Step 7 — Calculate damages

What financial loss resulted?

Step 8 — Examine limitation

Is the claim still legally enforceable?

Step 9 — Consider contribution

Are other parties also responsible?

Step 10 — Consider statutory remediation mechanisms

Does the Building Safety Act or another statutory scheme alter the allocation of responsibility?

32. Six Most Important Cases — Revision Table

33. Overall Legal Position

The modern law of Cladding Liability Claims has moved away from viewing cladding merely as an architectural or construction issue.

It is now understood as a combination of:

Construction Law

• Contract Law
• Professional Negligence
• Building Regulations
• Fire-Safety Law
• Property Law
• Landlord-Tenant Law
• Product Liability
• Building Safety Regulation
• Remediation Law

The most important lesson from Martlet Homes is that a contractor can be responsible for substantial remediation costs where the external wall system was defectively designed or installed. Bouygues demonstrates the importance of contractual allocation of design and installation responsibility. URS v BDW shows the significance of historic defects and limitation. And Essendi demonstrates the newer proposition that an inherently dangerous cladding system can require remediation even where it is not physically deteriorated.

In short: a cladding liability claim asks not simply "Is the cladding defective?", but "Who was legally responsible for the defect, what duty was breached, did that breach cause the safety risk and loss, and who should ultimately bear the reasonable cost of making the building safe?"