25 October 2026

Thames Water v Imber: a flood claim settled on the footing that the house was unsaleable is rescinded because it had been sold before the deal was done

A homeowner told a mediation that her flooded house could not be sold and claimed its full value. It was sold for £780,000 a fortnight later, and she settled for £225,000 without saying so. Deputy Master Marzec entered summary judgment in fraud, rescinded the settlement deed and ordered the money repaid.

24 October 2026

Onecom v EVE Connect: a 22-year loss of profit claim survives summary attack because the court may need to ask whether the defendant would have terminated, not only whether it could

A supplier ended a master services agreement in November 2024 which, it was not disputed, it could have ended without cause on 28 February 2026. Dias J would not cut the customer's loss of profit claim off at that date on a summary application, holding it arguable that the defendant must show it would have used the right, and ordered the claim to be repleaded.

23 October 2026

STN v POR: an award that dismisses a pleaded counterclaim without addressing it is sent back to the arbitrator under section 68

A footballer challenged an arbitration award won by his former agent on four grounds of serious irregularity. Butcher J upheld one: the arbitrator had dismissed a separately pleaded limb of the counterclaim in a single sentence without analysing it. The award was remitted to the same arbitrator, not set aside.

22 October 2026

Serapid v Octavius: an adjudicator's award goes unenforced where the paying party has a real prospect of showing that no subcontract was ever made

A lift manufacturer won £416,499 in adjudication after a main contractor dropped it from a station footbridge scheme. Moody J refused summary judgment: the parties had agreed most terms on an NEC3 subcontract that was never signed, and the contractor had a real prospect of showing they never made a contract at all.

21 October 2026

Mariana v BHP: a claimant on a conditional fee agreement can recover interest on its costs from before judgment

BHP said the dam claimants could not have pre-judgment interest on their costs because they had paid nothing, and because the success fee they will owe cannot be recovered from the losing side. The Court of Appeal held that the power to award interest on costs reaches a party that must compensate others for legal services given on credit, and dismissed the appeal.

20 October 2026

Mulalley v Sto: a fixed judgment sum does not make a contribution claim a specified amount, so default judgment against the supplier's parent goes to assessment

A contractor held liable for a defective overcladding system asked for default judgment for its whole judgment debt against the German parent of its insolvent supplier, by way of a building liability order. Constable J held that the contribution and the order against the parent both turn on what the court finds just and equitable, and directed an assessment.

19 October 2026

3Kings Holdings v TCF 1 GP: no witness signed the investor's execution page, so there was no deed and the power of attorney could not bind it to a Cayman agreement

A general partner relied on a power of attorney in an English fund partnership agreement when it executed a Cayman Islands agreement, with exclusive Cayman jurisdiction, that it said bound the limited partners. HHJ Paul Matthews held that, because no witness signed the investor's execution page, the English agreement was not its deed, so no power of attorney was granted and the English court kept jurisdiction.

18 October 2026

Paskaran v Blue Bricks London: an application to strike out a claim, with a stay for arbitration in the alternative, was not a step in the proceedings

A landlord answered its tenant's rent review claim by applying to strike it out or, alternatively, to stay it for arbitration. The district judge treated the stay as a fallback and refused it. On appeal HHJ Marquand held that the order of the two requests did not matter: an express application for a stay showed the landlord had not given up arbitration.

17 October 2026

PGMBM Law v Krenak: a client committee with wide management powers could not sack the solicitors on behalf of 400,000 claimants

A committee set up under a collective conditional fee agreement voted to end the solicitors' retainer and appoint a new firm. Waksman J held that general powers to manage the litigation did not carry each client's individual right to terminate.

16 October 2026

Amber Construction v Ilyrian Construction: an invalid payment application, a live delay cross-claim and limitation restrain a subcontractor's winding-up petitions

A subcontractor served statutory demands on its contractor for works on two projects in 2019 and 2021. Chief ICC Judge Briggs granted final injunctions on both demands, holding that an application which left out the identifiers the subcontract required created no notified sum.

15 October 2026

Avanton Capital v LUC Construction: a contractor that said it could not pay, but never asked its shareholders, gets no stay of a notified sum award

A developer SPV won a notified sum adjudication against its contractor. Facing enforcement, the contractor asked the TCC for a stay, pointing to the developer's weak accounts and its own inability to pay. Constable J refused the stay and set out when a defendant's own impecuniosity can count.

14 October 2026

Stonegate v Heavey: an unargued implied term was a serious irregularity, but the section 68 challenge now waits on a parallel award

An arbitrator awarded damages on an implied term that neither party had pleaded or argued. The court held that was a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996, then adjourned the question of substantial injustice because the same arbitrator has since upheld the same term after full argument in a parallel reference.

13 October 2026

Temane v Santander: a Spanish injunction did not excuse a Spanish bank from paying USD 90.8 million on English law demand bonds

A contractor on a Mozambique power project obtained an ex parte order in Spain stopping its bank from paying the employer's demands. The Commercial Court held that the bank's only performance was payment into the employer's account in Mozambique, so the rule in Ralli Brothers was never engaged, and it refused a stay.

12 October 2026

Paul Little Construction v Byrne: a homeowner's one-star reviews of his builder were defamatory, and his remedial cost claims were fact, not opinion

A homeowner posted two one-star Google reviews of the builder that worked on his Plymouth house. The High Court held both defamatory at common law. His verdict on the workmanship was opinion. His statements that he had paid thousands to have the work put right, and that the builder had not honoured a written promise to pay for it, were fact.

8 October 2026

HDR Group v Formela-Osborne (VO): a contractor that carried the council's rates under an indemnity had no standing to challenge them

A remediation company went onto a contaminated former industrial site in Merthyr Tydfil under a conditional agreement for lease and a short non-exclusive licence for enabling works. It had agreed to indemnify the council against the rates, and later challenged the site's rateable value. The Upper Tribunal struck its appeal out: it was neither an occupier nor the holder of any interest in the land, so it was never entitled to make the proposal.

7 October 2026

Taylor Wimpey v Taylor Woodrow: a Defective Premises Act claim lost on limitation in arbitration can return through a group company

A developer's claim for external wall fire safety defects at a Cardiff tower development was dismissed in arbitration as out of time, weeks before the Building Safety Act extended the limitation period to 30 years. A subsidiary in the same group, holding its own interest in the buildings, has now sued the contractor in the Technology and Construction Court. The court refused to strike the claim out as an abuse of process.

5 October 2026

Douglas v Channon: the boundary went to the defendant's expert, and so did 70 per cent of the costs

A neighbour lost her claim on the boundary line and defeated every money claim in the counterclaim, yet was ordered to pay 70 per cent of the other side's costs. The High Court upheld both the line and the costs order. A trial judge who heard the case decides who won, and an appellant who wants that reviewed must do the detailed work.

4 October 2026

Persimmon v Amec: no Scott schedule for fire safety defects, ask a targeted Part 18 request instead

A developer suing its design and build contractor for fire safety remediation was asked to plead every defect and location in a Scott schedule. The Technology and Construction Court refused. Defect types pleaded against each wall build-up were enough, and any gap in the internal case is for a targeted Part 18 request.

3 October 2026

GI Globinvestment v XY ERS: an adviser's silence is not a claim on its own

A family investment company lost heavily in a fund set up by its own adviser's owner and sued for breach of fiduciary duty. The Court of Appeal held that English law knows no freestanding fiduciary duty of disclosure, and that investors this sophisticated had given informed consent to the conflict.

2 October 2026

Essendi v London Property Company: the trial judge may be told when a Part 36 offer was made

A claimant that largely won a trial of preliminary issues in the Technology and Construction Court wants its costs down to 21 days after the defendant's first Part 36 offer. The defendant said the judge could not be told that date until the whole case was decided. The court held that the date is not a term of the offer and may be disclosed.

1 October 2026

Persimmon v Harding Estates: four update emails were not a request for approval, and the extension of time went with them

A housebuilder bought land on terms that it would build a roundabout, a spine road and drainage within two years. It missed the date and claimed an extension of time, saying the seller had unreasonably withheld approval to moving an attenuation pond. The court held it had no real prospect of that extension. Its emails had kept the seller informed. None of them asked for approval.

30 September 2026

Atlantic Projects v EP NI Energy: a termination point carved out of a power station dispute is not a preliminary issue

A contractor terminated a power station contract for non-payment and left site. The employer asked the Technology and Construction Court to try four questions about that termination before the main trial. The court refused. The issues were not clean, they would not dispose of much, and a seven week trial was needed whatever the answer.

29 September 2026

Craigard v Westbury: a landlord set on replacing the plant still recovers the cost of repair

The landlord of a Dartford office building was always going to strip out the old air conditioning and fit a new system, whatever the tenant did. The Technology and Construction Court held that this did not cut down the common law cost of repair. It did defeat the claim for rent lost during the works. The landlord also failed to prove that the old system needed replacing rather than repairing, and recovered 648,141.47 pounds against a pleaded claim of 1,609,125.53 pounds.

28 September 2026

Danion v IPS Roofing: a jurisdiction point that was never reserved is a jurisdiction point lost

A roofing contractor told the Technology and Construction Court that the adjudicator had valued a final account when the notice of adjudication had referred a dispute about the notified sum. The court did not have to decide whether that was right. The objection went to the adjudicator's power to start at all, it was never reserved in the response, and it was therefore waived. Summary judgment for 187,279.72 pounds followed.

27 September 2026

BDP Construction v Cygnet: an adjudicator may find that neither side proved its case

Two parties fought over one number, the rate of liquidated damages, and each said the other's contract documents had never reached it. The adjudicator held that neither had proved its rate, so the deduction notice failed and the retention was released. The Technology and Construction Court has enforced that decision. A dispute with two figures in it does not confine an adjudicator to choosing one of them.

26 September 2026

Khuja v Cherwell District Council: being the sole director is not consent

A council fined a sole director 24,975 pounds for his company's breaches of the houses in multiple occupation regulations, on the footing that he was its controlling mind. The Upper Tribunal has cancelled the penalty. Consent under section 251 of the Housing Act 2004 has to be proved as actual knowledge of the facts that make up the offence, and the office alone will not supply it.

25 September 2026

MDM Civil Engineering v Morgan: the only objector held the burden, not the benefit

A developer wanted a third house on a plot a 2019 transfer had restricted to two. The one neighbour who objected turned out to have no right to enforce the restriction, and his valuation evidence went with him. The Tribunal modified the covenant anyway, then made the order conditional on payment of 37,500 pounds to the company that does hold the benefit.

24 September 2026

Payments Pro v FCSA: four accreditations withdrawn, and no summary route to undo them

Four umbrella employers under common ownership lost the accreditation that most of their clients insist on. They asked the Chancery Division to rule, without a trial, that the association had no power to withdraw it. All four grounds failed. Nothing about the validity of the terminations was decided, and the court refused to shut the claim out either.

23 September 2026

Gilbert v Broadoak: an English judgment is no passport to freezing a foreign recipient's assets

About £5m left the judgment debtor's bank account. Some £3.8m went through a currency dealer and €2.55m landed in a Spanish account in the majority shareholder's wife's name. Every condition for a worldwide freezing order against her was found to be met. The order still fell, because nothing in Practice Direction 6B lets a free standing freezing application be served out of the jurisdiction.

22 September 2026

Eaton v Cheshire East Council: a highway authority that left a known drainage fault for over a decade is liable in nuisance

A cottage below a village road flooded at least 20 times in 13 years from water running off the highway. The council said it had 104,000 gullies and finite resources. The High Court upheld a finding of private nuisance and £42,500 in damages, holding that the trial judge set no improper standard of care.

21 September 2026

Glencore v Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery: a defrauded supplier may still try to rescind after the buyer goes into liquidation

A crude oil supplier left unpaid on about US$236 million when a Lincolnshire refinery collapsed wants to rescind five supply contracts for fraud and trace into the refined product. The liquidator said the right to rescind died with the winding up order. The High Court held that the contrary case is seriously arguable and gave the supplier leave to sue.

20 September 2026

Liberty Managing Agency v Chedid: the insurer cannot avoid until the fraud is established

A directors and officers policy barred the insurer from avoiding for fraudulent non-disclosure unless the fraud was established by a final decision or a written admission. The insurers avoided anyway, weeks before the criminal trial of two former officers. The Commercial Court has held that the words mean what they say, that defence costs for unproven allegations are not uninsurable, and that the money must keep flowing.

19 September 2026

Intralinks v Nexans: the invoice named an English bank, so the breach happened here

A French company signed a work order by electronic signature one minute after it arrived. That work order carried an English law master agreement, not the French one circulated the day before. The London Circuit Commercial Court has dismissed the jurisdiction challenge, implied a term that payment must go to the account named in the invoice, and held that England is clearly the right place to try the claim.

18 September 2026

Axa v Santander: an indemnity does not reach conduct before the contract that created it

The Court of Appeal has set aside a judgment of about 677 million pounds on a contractual indemnity. The clause covered acts and omissions while performing duties under the agreement, and those duties began on the day it was signed. A cross appeal under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 was dismissed: money paid to settle regulatory complaints was not a liability any complainant could have established in an action.

17 September 2026

Forthwell v Pontegadea: the subsidiary that lost the trade falls into the black hole

A Glasgow restaurant was flooded, then damaged by fire, and has never been repaired. The tenant sued the landlord for more than 1.1 million pounds of trading losses, all of them suffered by its own subsidiary. On 17 September 2026 the Supreme Court held that the route relied on, a right to sue for another party's loss as a matter of legal policy, is not the law of England and Wales and is not the law of Scotland either.

16 September 2026

Niprose Investments v Vincents Solicitors: the advice was negligent and the buyer still recovered nothing

A family company paid 50 per cent deposits on eight flats in a buyer funded development in Liverpool. The development was never built and the money was gone. The court found that its solicitors had failed to explain that the machinery for releasing the deposits protected nobody, and found that the company would have walked away had it been told. The claim was dismissed anyway. The loss came from the developer's collapse, and about that risk the advice had been clear.

15 September 2026

Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership v Avison Young: the adjudicator took a third route on the figures, and the award of £8.7m survived

A project manager certified more than the contractor had earned, the contractor went insolvent, and an adjudicator awarded the employer £8,729,179.33 in damages against the project manager. The project manager said he had valued the works instead of deciding negligence, and had fixed the figures on a document both sides had told him to leave alone. The Technology and Construction Court enforced the decision in full.

14 September 2026

Old Chiswick Protection Society v Hounslow: the committee was told the consented scheme was poor, and never told the inspector had said otherwise

A planning committee granted permission for 132 flats beside the Chiswick House Conservation Area after being told that the consented scheme it would displace was poor in design and poor in accommodation. A planning inspector had decided the opposite in 2024. The committee was never shown his decision, and the Planning Court quashed the permission.

13 September 2026

Corelogic v Landmark: the breach was admitted, and the larger head of loss still died for want of records

A supplier accepted it had taken no steps to build the interface it had promised. It still defeated the larger head of loss, because the claimant had kept no timesheets for the labour it said it had spent once the claim was threatened. The Technology and Construction Court awarded the hosting costs, refused the labour costs, and said records ought to be kept to support a claim even where they are not kept as a matter of course.

12 September 2026

Alame v Shell: a claim built on inference is not a global claim, and needed no permission

Oil spills in the Niger Delta between 2011 and 2013 produced claims fought for a decade over one question: must a claimant tie each item of damage to an identified event? After disclosure the claimants pleaded that systemic failures caused all the spills, with 106 identified spills as their secondary case. On 10 September 2026 the King's Bench Division held that this was not a new case, that it needed no permission, and that it is not a global claim because it does not stand or fall as a whole.

8 September 2026

ABC v Huntercombe: an employer's vicarious liability to outsiders does not pass under TUPE

A hospital operator went into liquidation with a large insurance deductible and more than fifty similar claims waiting. A claimant tried to reach the company that had taken over the staff under a TUPE transfer, arguing that the old employer's vicarious liability for its employees' acts had transferred with their contracts. The Court of Appeal has held that it did not. The claims stay with the insolvent transferor.

7 September 2026

Batavia Eximp v Pedregal Maritime: a claim for security does not stop a time bar, and a bill of lading must say which cargo is on deck

Cargo holders arrested a sister ship in Singapore inside the year, then started the London arbitration the contract required after the year had run. The Court of Appeal has held that the arrest proceedings were not suit under the Hague-Visby Rules, so the claim was extinguished. It has also held that a bill which gives only a count of pieces on deck does not take that cargo out of the Rules. The whole claim is time-barred.

6 September 2026

Lonestar Properties v Lecacheur: a manager can be appointed over two buildings, but not because they adjoin

The leaseholders of one flat in one half of a St John's Wood pair asked for a manager to be appointed. The First-tier Tribunal appointed one over both halves, including the home of the leaseholders who control the landlord company. The Upper Tribunal has held that the power to do that exists, and that on this evidence it was wrong to use it. The order is to be cut back to one building.

5 September 2026

Augustine v Data Cars: a flat charge levied on everyone can still be part-time discrimination

Every driver paid the same fixed weekly fee for access to the booking system, whatever hours he worked, so the driver on short hours paid more for each hour he drove. Three tribunals and courts held he could not win because his part-time status was not the sole ground for that treatment. On 12 August 2026 the Supreme Court allowed his appeal. An effective cause is enough.

4 September 2026

Drelle v Servis-Terminal: a foreign judgment nobody has recognised here is still a debt

A Russian company holding a judgment for RUB 2 billion served a statutory demand on its former director in London and had him made bankrupt. The Court of Appeal set that aside, holding that a judgment from abroad does nothing in England until an English court has recognised it. On 27 July 2026 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The obligation to pay under such a judgment is a debt, and a petition can be presented on it.

3 September 2026

Ebert v Ferrari: pre-action disclosure stops at the border

A man convicted in Hong Kong after a fatal crash wanted Ferrari's internal documents before suing it in England. The Technology and Construction Court held on 3 September 2026 that section 33 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 gives it no power to order pre-action disclosure against a foreign respondent of documents held abroad, and that even with the power it would have refused. The route to those documents is a letter of request to the Italian court.

2 September 2026

A1 v P: winning a jurisdiction challenge is no protection against paying indemnity costs

Three companies attacked an arbitration award for want of jurisdiction. Two of them got the award against them set aside. On 31 July 2026 the Commercial Court still ordered two of the three to pay the other side's costs of the argument that had produced a very large part of the costs of the case, and to pay them on the indemnity basis, because the evidence put up to support that argument was misleading.

1 September 2026

Mackie Motors v Renault: a refused amendment did not shut out the second claim

A car dealer's first claim was struck out at the pleading stage in 2022 and its appeal failed in 2023. It sued again in 2025 on implied terms the Court of Appeal had pointed to but which nobody had pleaded. On 17 August 2026 the Circuit Commercial Court refused to strike the second claim out as an abuse of process, and refused summary judgment while saying the defendants would probably win the point at trial.

31 August 2026

Prime Way Care v Southwark: a rejected bidder wins sight of how its rivals were marked

A care provider scored 3 on a single question where 4 was the pass mark, and was knocked out of a Southwark framework procurement at the first stage. It asked to see the evaluation records of the bidders who had scored higher. On 21 July 2026 the Technology and Construction Court ordered disclosure of five of them into a lawyers only confidentiality ring, and held that a pleading drafted by a litigant in person was wide enough to put unequal treatment in issue.

30 August 2026

Apollo XI v Nexedge: a freezing order that fell now goes to an inquiry into what it cost

A freezing injunction obtained without notice was discharged as wrongly obtained. The broker it was aimed at says the order stalled a regulatory application and cost it more than five million pounds. On 28 August 2026 the Commercial Court gave permission to enforce the cross-undertaking in damages and ordered an inquiry, refusing to let the party that obtained the order argue the loss away on paper.

29 August 2026

Transport for London v Young: building the hazard fixes the duty, proving breach takes a great deal more

Two cyclists mistook a 5 to 6 cm kerb for a painted line and came off. A circuit judge held the authority that built the track liable in negligence. The Court of Appeal has set that finding aside and sent both claims back for a fresh hearing, because the judge treated a foreseeable risk and an available precaution as proof of breach.

28 August 2026

Apasen v Tower Hamlets: an inaccurate contract award notice may count as no notice at all

A council abandoned a care services procurement, then awarded interim contracts directly on the justification of extreme and unavoidable urgency. It ran a voluntary standstill of eight working days and treated that as the end of any claim to set the contracts aside. On 28 August 2026 the Technology and Construction Court refused to strike that claim out. Section 105(4) of the Procurement Act 2023 treats a published notice carrying inaccurate information as a notice never published, and what makes a notice inaccurate has not yet been decided by any court.

27 August 2026

Avon Freeholds v Cresta Court E RTM: a landlord cannot kill a right to manage claim with a notice failure that cost it nothing

A right to manage company missed one leaseholder when it sent out its invitations to participate, then served its claim notice five days before she joined the company anyway. The freeholder said the omission made the claim notice void, and the Court of Appeal agreed. On 27 August 2026 the Supreme Court allowed the company's appeal, held that the two notice rules are procedural and do not go to entitlement, and restored the decision of the Upper Tribunal.

26 August 2026

Svella Connect v Virgin Media: a framework of over 200 pages left no gap for an implied duty of good faith

A fibre network contractor said Virgin Media owed it implied duties of good faith under three framework agreements and under the settlement that took it out of two of them. On 26 August 2026 the Technology and Construction Court gave summary judgment against that case. The parties had written down their own bargain, and there was nothing left for an implied term to do.

25 August 2026

Great Asia Maritime v Orion Shipping: an express compensation clause carries loss of bargain damages without a repudiatory breach

A seller was twice not ready to hand over a ship by the cancelling date. The buyer cancelled under the standard form and claimed the gap between the contract price and the risen market, US$1.85 million. The Supreme Court dismissed the seller's appeal on 22 July 2026 and held that where a form couples a right to terminate with an express right to compensation, loss of bargain is recoverable even though the breach was not repudiatory.

24 August 2026

EMJ Plastics v Mekina Industries: 11,579 copied files, and a story about the boss that did not survive cross-examination

The operations manager of a bridge formwork manufacturer copied 11,579 company files to an external drive while still employed, then told the court a director had asked him to do it. The High Court found he was lying. Both former employees were held liable in contract and confidence, and the manager for breach of fiduciary duty as well.

23 August 2026

Barclay v Secretary of State for Transport: the Gatwick dual runway order survives, and a requirement tailpiece is held lawful

A development consent order for dual runway operations at Gatwick was attacked on policy reading, on the economic case, on carbon and on wastewater. The Planning Court dismissed both claims. On 4 August 2026 the Court of Appeal refused both applications for permission to appeal, held every ground unarguable, and certified that its decision may be cited as an authority.

22 August 2026

JKD v IKC: a refusal of interim measures was a procedural order, and section 68 could not reach it

A contractor terminated an EPC contract for prolonged force majeure and asked an ICC tribunal to stop the employer calling the performance bond. The tribunal refused, in a document it titled Procedural Order No. 4. The contractor asked the Commercial Court to treat that order as an award and set it aside for serious irregularity. The court held it was not an award, and the challenge failed at the first hurdle.

21 August 2026

Evans v JNP Group Consulting Engineers: a retirement letter with no settlement wording settled everything

Three civil engineers sued the company their practice had merged into for unpaid remuneration, for the value of their shares and for the balances on their directors' loan accounts. The company counterclaimed on warranties it had taken about the recoverability of the fee debts transferred to it. The letters each engineer signed on retirement carried no entire agreement clause and no settlement wording. The court held that they compromised the claims on both sides, and dismissed claim and counterclaim alike.

20 August 2026

Involve Visual Collaboration v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: an authority may re-open a moderation it has already closed

A bidder scored a consensus 7 on a threshold question, then 1 when the authority re-opened the moderation six weeks later, and was excluded before its price was ever marked. The Technology and Construction Court held that re-moderation was open to the authority, that one evaluator went too far in comparing the bid against an outside solution, and that the breach changed nothing.

19 August 2026

Elliott v Lloyds Syndicate 4444: an altered builder's quotation took down the whole claim

A householder claimed subsidence damage to a Grade II listed house near Bedford. To support a request for an interim payment he produced a builder's quotation that had been altered to look like structural underpinning. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claim in full, and held in any event that no subsidence damage had occurred while the policy was on risk.

18 August 2026

Westgreen v Kiryukhina: an advance payment clawback, and an enforcement challenge that failed on every ground

A contract administrator stripped £650,000 of advance payments out of an interim certificate before any of the contractual conditions for repaying them had been met. The adjudicator ordered the money back. On 18 August 2026 the Technology and Construction Court enforced that decision, refused a stay of execution, and awarded costs on the indemnity basis.

17 August 2026

HB (WM) v Sto: two German companies must answer a cladding claim in the English court

Three claims put at about £90 million over cladding on 18 high rise buildings. Two German defendants asked the Technology and Construction Court to set aside service out of the jurisdiction. It refused. Section 149 of the Building Safety Act 2022 has never been construed by a court, and the judge declined to construe it on an interlocutory application.

17 August 2026

E & TL Jones v Vale of Glamorgan: a project bank account that was never opened protects no one

A groundworks subcontractor was left unpaid on a certified application for £486,017.67 when ISG entered administration, then lost again in the Technology and Construction Court. The project bank account that should have held the money on trust was never set up, and the court held that the employer owed the subcontractor nothing.

16 August 2026

Wallace Estates v Durkan Estates: one trial for two jurisdictions under the Building Safety Act

The Technology and Construction Court and the First-tier Tribunal will manage and hear a building safety dispute together, with one trial and one body of evidence, and findings that bind both sets of proceedings. The judgment of 10 August 2026 sets out how, and where the limits sit.