Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Triathlon: Remediation Contribution Orders under the Building Safety Act 2022 – Part Two Review
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Triathlon: Remediation Contribution Orders under the Building Safety Act 2022 – Part Two Review
PLP chancery, commercial and property barristers Bryan Patterson-Whitaker and Dominic Crossley discuss the latest developments in the legal framework shaping the built environment.
Following on from their previous podcast exploring remediation contribution orders (RCOs) under the Building Safety Act 2022, Bryan and Dominic look at the recent Court of Appeal case Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership [2025] EWCA Civ [2025] EWCA Civ 846.
This was a dispute which concerned five residential towers at East Village, Stratford in East London in which building safety defects were uncovered and required significant remediation costs.
An RCO under the Building Safety Act was granted by the First-tier Tribunal against the site’s original developer who lodged a leapfrog appeal with the Court of Appeal.
Bryan and Dominic explore the recent Court of Appeal ruling in this case. This includes whether it was just and equitable for the First-tier Tribunal to have made an RCO and whether the legislation applied retrospectively before the provisions of the Building Safety Act came into force.
Based on these grounds and a number of different sub grounds, the pair examine the key aspects of the ruling and the basis behind the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the RCO given by the First-tier Tribunal.
Following on from their previous podcast exploring remediation contribution orders (RCOs) under the Building Safety Act 2022, Bryan and Dominic look at the recent Court of Appeal case Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership [2025] EWCA Civ [2025] EWCA Civ 846.
This was a dispute which concerned five residential towers at East Village, Stratford in East London in which building safety defects were uncovered and required significant remediation costs.
An RCO under the Building Safety Act was granted by the First-tier Tribunal against the site’s original developer who lodged a leapfrog appeal with the Court of Appeal.
Bryan and Dominic explore the recent Court of Appeal ruling in this case. This includes whether it was just and equitable for the First-tier Tribunal to have made an RCO and whether the legislation applied retrospectively before the provisions of the Building Safety Act came into force.
Based on these grounds and a number of different sub grounds, the pair examine the key aspects of the ruling and the basis behind the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the RCO given by the First-tier Tribunal.
Bryan and Dominic also consider what the consequences are from this ruling for different parties impacted by section 124 of the Building Safety Act.
View all episodes
By Parklane PlowdenPLP chancery, commercial and property barristers Bryan Patterson-Whitaker and Dominic Crossley discuss the latest developments in the legal framework shaping the built environment.
Following on from their previous podcast exploring remediation contribution orders (RCOs) under the Building Safety Act 2022, Bryan and Dominic look at the recent Court of Appeal case Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership [2025] EWCA Civ [2025] EWCA Civ 846.
This was a dispute which concerned five residential towers at East Village, Stratford in East London in which building safety defects were uncovered and required significant remediation costs.
An RCO under the Building Safety Act was granted by the First-tier Tribunal against the site’s original developer who lodged a leapfrog appeal with the Court of Appeal.
Bryan and Dominic explore the recent Court of Appeal ruling in this case. This includes whether it was just and equitable for the First-tier Tribunal to have made an RCO and whether the legislation applied retrospectively before the provisions of the Building Safety Act came into force.
Based on these grounds and a number of different sub grounds, the pair examine the key aspects of the ruling and the basis behind the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the RCO given by the First-tier Tribunal.
Following on from their previous podcast exploring remediation contribution orders (RCOs) under the Building Safety Act 2022, Bryan and Dominic look at the recent Court of Appeal case Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership [2025] EWCA Civ [2025] EWCA Civ 846.
This was a dispute which concerned five residential towers at East Village, Stratford in East London in which building safety defects were uncovered and required significant remediation costs.
An RCO under the Building Safety Act was granted by the First-tier Tribunal against the site’s original developer who lodged a leapfrog appeal with the Court of Appeal.
Bryan and Dominic explore the recent Court of Appeal ruling in this case. This includes whether it was just and equitable for the First-tier Tribunal to have made an RCO and whether the legislation applied retrospectively before the provisions of the Building Safety Act came into force.
Based on these grounds and a number of different sub grounds, the pair examine the key aspects of the ruling and the basis behind the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the RCO given by the First-tier Tribunal.
Bryan and Dominic also consider what the consequences are from this ruling for different parties impacted by section 124 of the Building Safety Act.