Expert Witness Journal Issue 68 August 2026 - Flipbook - Page 62
Mulalley v Sto: a landmark
Building Safety Act decision and
what it means for contractors
by Edward Lamptey, Solicitor & Timothy Willis, Senior Associate at Irwin Mitchell LLP.
Cladding System), which was manufactured and
supplied by Sto Limited.
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC)
has handed down its decision in Mulalley & Co.
Ltd v Sto Ltd and another company [2026] EWHC
1552 (TCC), providing one of the 昀椀rst reported
judicial analyses of a claim brought under s. 149 of
the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022).
Following the Grenfell Tower 昀椀re in 2017, concerns
about cladding safety prompted investigations. The
Employer subsequently identi昀椀ed defects in the
Cladding System.
Notably, it appears to be the 昀椀rst reported judgment
involving a s.149 BSA 2022 claim, and the 昀椀rst
instance of a Building Liability Order being made
following default judgment.
To resolve its liability, Mulalley entered into a
settlement agreement in December 2022, under
which it:
Whilst the case is noteworthy, it should not be viewed
as a radical development in the law. Claims relying
on section 149 have been pursued since the BSA
2022 came into force and it is likely that some have
resolved without reaching a reported judgment.
Nor is the outcome particularly surprising. Given
the 昀椀ndings established by the earlier default
judgment and the court’s broad discretion in
contribution proceedings, many practitioners would
have expected liability to fall predominantly on
the manufacturer whose allegedly defective system
formed the basis of the claim.
•
Agreed to remove and replace the defective
cladding; and
•
Pay certain associated sums to the Employer.
Mulalley then sought to recover these costs from
Sto Limited by way of a contribution arising from its
own liability to the Employer pursuant to s.149 of the
BSA 2022.
However, matters became more complex when Sto
Limited entered administration in January 2025.
Mulalley therefore pursued Sto Limited’s parent
company, Sto SE & Co. KGaA, for a Building Liability
Order pursuant to s.130 of the BSA 2022.
The decision nevertheless o昀昀ers useful guidance
on how the court may approach these types of
claims and the assessment of responsibility between
contractors and product manufacturers in the
context of historic building safety defects.
Sto Germany failed to engage in the proceedings.
Consequently, in December 2025, the TCC entered
default judgment, granting the Building Liability
Order, with damages to be assessed later.
Background: From Refurbishment
to Litigation
Assessing Damages: The Court’s Approach
With liability established by default, the TCC
clari昀椀ed that the only issue remaining was quantum.
In December 2006, Chelmer Housing Partnership
Ltd engaged Mulalley & Company Limited design
and build contract to carry out refurbishment works
at Parkside Court, a residential tower in Chelmsford.
The project included the design and installation of
external cladding.
Importantly,
the
TCC
emphasised
that:
“Notwithstanding Sto Germany’s failure to engage, the
assessment is not made by default and Mulalley must prove
its loss or damage by evidence”.
Mulalley subcontracted the cladding works,
specifying the StoTherm Classic System (the
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
60
AUGUST 2026
