Summary

For the first time, the Technology and Construction Court and the First-tier Tribunal sat together to decide how parallel Building Safety Act 2022 proceedings over the same building should be run. The answer is one set of directions and one trial: the tribunal application and the court claim will be jointly managed and heard together, listed for 31 January 2028 before a TCC judge and an FTT judge.

Both parties asked for that outcome and the court and the tribunal endorsed it. The two sets of proceedings overlap on facts and issues; a joint trial avoids inconsistent findings and duplicated cost, and findings of fact made at the joint trial will bind both sets of proceedings and all three parties.

There is no winner on the merits. This is a case management judgment, and the parties obtained the order they jointly sought. Its reach is wider than these parties, because it is the first working example of the joint procedure the fourth edition of the TCC Guide now provides for.

Background and facts

The dispute concerns Centrillion Point in Croydon. Under a Remediation Agreement dated 1 July 2024, Durkan Estates agreed with Wallace Estates to remedy relevant defects at the building, as section 120 of the Building Safety Act 2022 defines them, at its own cost.

The arrangement collapsed and Wallace served a termination notice. Two sets of proceedings followed. In the Technology and Construction Court, Durkan Estates, as Claimant, says the termination was unlawful and claims damages, and Wallace counterclaims. In the First-tier Tribunal, Wallace, as Applicant, seeks a remediation contribution order under section 124(1) of the Act against Durkan Estates and Durkan Holdings, with the claim currently estimated at about 13.6 million pounds including VAT.

The issue

Nothing on the merits was before the court. The question was procedural: should the tribunal application and the court claim be case managed and heard separately, in two forums on two timetables, or together, and on what directions.

By the hearing the parties' positions had converged. Both sought joint case management and a single hearing, accepting the delay a joint listing brings in exchange for one body of evidence and one set of findings. What remained was whether the court and the tribunal would endorse that course.

The decision

The court and the tribunal ordered that the two sets of proceedings be jointly managed and tried together. The joint trial is listed for 31 January 2028, with an estimate of twelve sitting days, before a TCC judge and an FTT judge. One set of witness statements will cover both proceedings and one set of expert evidence will serve both. The parties must keep separate costs codes for the court work and the tribunal work, because apportionment may matter when costs are decided.

The Court and the FTT are content to endorse the parties' agreed approach, particularly in light of the significant overlap of issues and facts between the TCC and the FTT Proceedings. It plainly has the effect of avoiding inconsistent findings, and duplicative costs for both parties in relation to disclosure, witness statements, expert reports and the trial itself.Mr Justice Constable and Judge Siobhan McGrath, paragraph 22

The annexed order gives the joint findings their force across both sets of proceedings:

The findings of fact made at the joint trial are to be treated as binding in both sets of Proceedings and as against all three parties.The Order, paragraph 5

One limit is stated. Durkan had pleaded that the tribunal could consider whether the termination was unlawful when deciding the contribution application, and Wallace admitted the point, so it was never argued. The judgment declines to endorse it:

It would be inappropriate to express a view, either way, on whether such limits exist when the matter is not in dispute between the parties and when the question has not been the subject of full argument.Mr Justice Constable and Judge Siobhan McGrath, paragraph 23

Practical implications

The outcome is procedural but the consequence is practical. Parties running parallel Building Safety Act proceedings in the court and the tribunal should expect joint management and a joint trial to be raised at the first case management conference, and to attract both forums wherever the facts overlap.

The machinery matters as much as the principle. Evidence must be prepared once, to stand in two forums. Findings travel across. Costs records must separate court work from tribunal work from the outset, because the order contemplates apportionment later.

Whether the tribunal can itself rule on the lawfulness of a termination remains open. Where that question is live and contested, this judgment does not answer it.

Wallace Estates Limited v Durkan Estates Limited and Durkan Holdings Limited [2026] EWHC 2133 (TCC). Technology and Construction Court, sitting with the First-tier Tribunal. Mr Justice Constable and Judge Siobhan McGrath. Judgment handed down 10 August 2026. Case references HT-2026-000045 and LON/00AH/BSB/2025/0611.