The Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s final report is poised to significantly influence the landscape of building regulations in the UK.
- A landmark ruling challenges the industry’s reliance on the ‘lemmings’ defence post-Grenfell.
- Certificates are guides, not guarantees, in ensuring building compliance.
- The retrospective changes to the Defective Premises Act 1972 impose lasting implications for cladding specifications.
- Broad duties in recent regulations may redefine contractual roles, emphasising a collective responsibility for compliance.
The impending final report from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, scheduled for release on 4 September, is expected to profoundly impact the current and future framework of building regulations in the United Kingdom. This inquiry has been critical in unveiling gaps and weaknesses in the existing regulatory system, as outlined in several key legal findings and legislative adjustments since the Grenfell tragedy in 2017.
In the Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd case, the court provided clarity on the ‘lemmings’ defence, heavily scrutinised after the Grenfell tragedy. The ruling indicates that adhering to industry norms, where those norms are inadequate, is not sufficient to evade responsibility. The ‘Bolam’ test, traditionally used in assessing professional negligence, was found inadequate as it cannot simply justify actions on the basis that others were doing the same.
In addition, British Board of Agrément certificates, which have traditionally been relied upon to establish material suitability, were highlighted as guides rather than definitive compliance assurances. This perspective was reinforced in the St James’s Oncology SPC Ltd v Lendlease Construction (Europe) Ltd case, where building-control certificates were deemed not to offer conclusive proof of compliance. Such interpretations suggest a need for a more robust evaluation of building materials and compliance protocols.
The amendments to the Defective Premises Act 1972, particularly the introduction of a 30-year retrospective limitation period on claims, pose significant changes for those involved in cladding specifications and approvals. This shift will influence contractual practices and liability terms, as highlighted in the cases of URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd and Vainker & Vainker v Marbank & Ors. The implications of these changes will likely resonate throughout the industry for decades.
Furthermore, the 2023 amendments to the Building Regulations mandate a broader scope of responsibility for compliance, particularly for designers and contractors indirectly involved in building works. These provisions, which enforce the duty to report compliance concerns, could implicate parties with previously limited roles in the design and construction process, promoting a more integrated approach to building safety.
In a discourse about ‘reasonable remediation,’ the ruling in LDC (Portfolio One) Ltd v George Downing Construction Ltd emphasises that when remedial work is based on expert evidence and aligns with current standards, it is likely to be considered reasonable. These conclusions underscore the evolving responsibility of professionals in ensuring safety and compliance in building projects.
The final report of the Grenfell Inquiry will not only summarise past failings but also set the stage for future regulatory reforms.
