GS Woodland Court GP 1 Limited & Anor v RGCM Limited & Ors

Summary

The owner of a higher-risk student accommodation building applied to adjourn the whole trial of its defects claim by about a year. The reason was uncertainty over the remedial works, because the Building Safety Regulator had rejected the proposed remedial scheme, and it is unlawful to carry out an unapproved scheme on such a building.

The applicant said it would be unfair to try the case while the eventual remedial scheme, and therefore the loss, remained uncertain. Some of the defendants opposed the adjournment, arguing the case was ready for trial and should proceed.

Mr Justice Constable refused to adjourn the whole trial. He held that liability was ready to be determined and should be tried on the existing June 2026 date, with the questions that depend on the final remedial scheme dealt with in a later phase. Splitting the trial was the least imperfect option.

Background and facts

The claimant owned a student accommodation development in Islington, of three blocks up to nine storeys, built using construction management procurement and modular construction. The claim was against the construction manager, the architect, the cladding and mechanical and electrical trade contractors, and the modular designer and supplier, over alleged defects. The installer was in liquidation.

The trial was listed to start in June 2026. Because the building is a higher-risk building, any remedial scheme has to be approved by the Building Safety Regulator before it can lawfully be carried out. The Regulator had rejected the proposed scheme, leaving the final scope and cost of the remedial works uncertain, and the claimant applied to adjourn the trial to after June 2027.

The issue

The court had to decide whether the uncertainty created by the Regulator's rejection of the remedial scheme made it unfair or impractical to hold the June 2026 trial, so that the whole trial should be adjourned, or whether the case, or part of it, could still be tried on the existing date.

The decision

Mr Justice Constable held that some uncertainty about the eventual remedial works is inherent whenever a court assesses the cost of works not yet carried out, and does not usually justify delaying a trial. The new feature was that, for a higher-risk building, it is unlawful to implement a remedial scheme the Regulator has not approved, but whether that affected case management was a question of fact, not principle.

Here, liability was ready to be tried and should be. The parts of the case that turned on the final approved remedial scheme could be held over to a second phase, even though splitting the trial carried some inefficiency and risk of overlapping evidence with related proceedings. The judge weighed those disadvantages against the benefit of progressing the dispute:

"Whilst, therefore, it may be an imperfect solution, the parties and the Court is faced with a situation in which all outcomes are imperfect. I regard splitting the trial in the manner set out above the least imperfect option."Mr Justice Constable, paragraph 58

He therefore refused to adjourn the whole trial and retained the June 2026 date for liability:

"Therefore, the application to adjourn the entirety of the proceedings is refused. The hearing in June 2026 will be retained, and will deal with liability issues, as identified in this judgment."Mr Justice Constable, paragraph 59

The parties were directed to agree a more detailed list of liability issues for the June 2026 hearing and to discuss options for listing the second phase, with the court to resolve any disagreement.

Practical implications

Regulator rejection of a remedial scheme need not stop a liability trial. Where a claim concerns a higher-risk building and the Building Safety Regulator has not approved the remedial scheme, that uncertainty affects the assessment of loss but does not prevent the court from trying liability, which can often proceed on the existing timetable.

Some uncertainty about future remedial works is inherent and usually tolerated. A court assessing the cost of works not yet done always works with a degree of uncertainty, and the risk that costs change, or that the claimant does not carry out the works, generally falls on the claimant rather than justifying delay.

Splitting liability from quantum can be the pragmatic answer. Rather than adjourning the whole case, the court may keep the trial date for liability and hold over the issues that depend on an approved remedial scheme, accepting some inefficiency to move the dispute forward.

Adjournment applications are judged on the facts and the overriding objective. Whether the building safety regime affects case management is a question of fact in each case. A party seeking to adjourn a long-listed trial must show that proceeding would be unfair or serve no purpose; uncertainty on some issues is not enough.

GS Woodland Court GP 1 Limited and GS Woodland Court GP 2 Limited v RGCM Limited and others [2026] EWHC 351 (TCC), Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Constable. Judgment handed down 19 February 2026.