Expert Witness Journal Issue 68 August 2026 - Flipbook - Page 16
Downstream recovery in historic
cladding claim: court awards 87.5%
contribution claim against cladding
product supplier
by Louise Shiels, Head of Dispute Resolution and Risk & Partner, Keith Kilburn, Legal
Director & Nathan Rodgers, Trainee Solicitor at Brodies LLP.
The TCC in Mulalley & Co Ltd v STO Ltd & Anor
considered how much a contractor could claim for
contribution against the supplier of a defective
external cladding system via a building liability
order (“BLO”).
Mulalley sought to recover the cost of these
remedial works from Sto, the British company that
supplied the cladding system. Sto was placed into
administration in 2025, and so Mulalley instead
pursued Sto’s German parent company via a BLO.
In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower 昀椀re in June
2017, many building owners undertook reviews
to determine whether their properties contained
potentially dangerous cladding.
BLO’s are a legal mechanism which prevent
developers from escaping liability for safety defects
by hiding behind complicated legal structures. They
extend liabilities to associated companies (such as
parents, successors, or related groups), typically,
where the original developer has become insolvent,
or where the company involved was a special purpose
vehicle without any assets.
In this recent case, the installed cladding system
was found to be unsafe, and Mulalley entered into
a settlement agreement where it agreed to remove
and replace the defective cladding.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
14
JULY | AUGUST 2026
