Expert Witness Journal Issue 68 August 2026 - Flipbook - Page 78
Building Safety Remediation
and Liability – Essendi v London
Property Company
by Theresa Mohammed, Partner at Watson Farley & Williams.
not generally understood to pose the severe 昀椀re
risks later exposed following the Grenfell Tower 昀椀re
in June 2017.
In Essendi UK Hotels 2 Ltd v London Property
Company Ltd [2026] EWHC 1354 (TCC) the
Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”)
delivered another signi昀椀cant judgment on
responsibility for cladding remediation in a
post‑Grenfell context, particularly involving
buildings outside the scope of the Building Safety
Act 2022.
The court accepted that prior to Grenfell there was
no su昀케cient basis to conclude that the tenant, which
had procured the recladding works, knew or ought
to have known of the risks inherent in Category 3
ACM panels. The evidence demonstrated a “general
lack of knowledge of the 昀椀re safety risks of using
ACM with a PE core” at the time of installation.
The case concerned the presence of Category
3 ACM cladding with a polyethylene core on a
multi‑storey hotel, which both experts agreed posed
an ‘intolerable risk’ of 昀椀re and required removal.
Following a sale and leaseback in 2007, the tenant
became the operator under a lease which divided
repairing obligations along traditional lines, with
the structure and exterior (including cladding)
ultimately falling to the landlord after a contractual
‘cut-o昀昀 date’ in May 2017.
The court held that the landlord was in breach of
both the ‘good condition’ covenant and the ‘legal
obligations’ covenant under the lease by failing to
remove and replace the cladding. It ordered speci昀椀c
performance requiring removal within six months
and replacement within eighteen months.
Post‑Grenfell investigations eventually revealed
that the hotel was entirely clad in Category 3 ACM.
Independent reports in 2024 con昀椀rmed that the
cladding system presented a signi昀椀cant 昀椀re risk and
required removal. Hydrock engineers assessed the
risk as ‘high’ and emphasised that removal of ACM
was ‘crucial’.
Crucially, the judgment con昀椀rms that extensive
building safety remediation works, including
wholesale replacement of dangerous cladding
systems, may fall within conventional repairing
and compliance obligations in commercial leases.
The court rejected arguments that mitigation
measures could serve as a proportionate alternative,
emphasising that “replacement is the only
permanent solution”.
In July 2025, following expert advice that continuing
operation could expose the tenant to prosecution
and severe life safety risk, the hotel was closed. The
landlord disputed liability for remediation works,
leading to proceedings.
The decision has potentially wide implications
in relation to legacy defects, allocation of risk
under historic contracts and the legal treatment
of remediation works following evolving safety
standards.
Legal points
The claimant advanced three principal legal bases
for requiring the landlord to undertake remediation
works. First, it relied on the landlord’s covenant
to keep the structure and exterior in good and
substantial repair and condition. Secondly, it relied
on the landlord’s obligation to comply with statutory
requirements, particularly under the Regulatory
Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Thirdly, it alleged
Factual background
The dispute concerned the Ibis London Wembley
hotel, a 16‑storey building reclad in 2005/2006 with
Reynobond ACM panels containing a polyethylene
core. At the time, the material was widely used and
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
76
AUGUST 2026
