Background
The dispute concerns fire-safety and other relevant defects at Centrillion Point in Croydon. Wallace Estates Limited was subject to a First-tier Tribunal remediation order requiring it to remedy specified defects. Under a July 2024 agreement, Durkan Estates Limited had undertaken to carry out certain remedial work at its own cost. After the FTT refused Wallace an extension of time for compliance with the remediation order, Wallace purported to terminate that agreement and took over the works.
Wallace subsequently applied in the FTT for a remediation contribution order against Durkan Estates and its parent, Durkan Holdings Limited, claiming an estimated £13.59 million. Durkan Estates separately brought TCC proceedings seeking declarations that Wallace’s termination was unlawful and damages; Wallace counterclaimed concerning the termination and alleged further defects. The matters before the court and tribunal were applications for joint case management and the first case-management conference, not the merits of the parties’ substantive claims.
The Court’s Holding
Sitting jointly, the TCC and FTT ordered the two sets of proceedings to be jointly managed and tried together while retaining their separate identities, parties, procedural rules and eventual judgments. They endorsed the parties’ agreed approach because of the substantial overlap in facts and issues and because a joint process would reduce the risks of inconsistent findings, duplicated evidence and unnecessary cost.
The order established a coordinated procedure for disclosure, factual witness statements and expert evidence in architecture, fire engineering and quantity surveying. It permitted materials from either proceeding to be used in both and made factual findings at the joint trial binding in both proceedings and against all three parties. A TCC judge and a separate FTT judge will sit at the pre-trial review and trial, although a single judge qualified to sit in both jurisdictions may handle earlier case management.
The court and tribunal did not decide whether the FTT itself had jurisdiction to determine the lawfulness of Wallace’s termination or whether doing so would be appropriate. Nor did they resolve liability for the defects, the validity of the termination, the alleged further defects or Wallace’s entitlement to a remediation contribution order.
Key Takeaways
- Overlapping TCC and FTT building-safety proceedings may be managed and heard together when doing so promotes consistent findings and avoids duplicated evidence and expense.
- A joint hearing does not formally consolidate the proceedings: each retains its own parties, procedural rules, judgment, costs regime and route of appeal.
- Coordinated directions can require a single body of disclosure, witness statements and expert evidence, while separate cost codes preserve the distinction between TCC and FTT work.
Why It Matters
This was the first joint hearing involving the President of the FTT (Lands Chamber) and a TCC judge. The judgment supplies practical guidance for coordinating related building-safety litigation across the two jurisdictions, including judicial composition, evidence, disclosure and costs.
The decision also indicates that the joint-management principles in the TCC Guide may extend beyond proceedings falling within its existing definition of “TCC BSA Proceedings” when related contractual litigation substantially overlaps with an FTT building-safety claim.