Judgment handed down in one of ‘The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2026’: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government v Urban Splash Limited & Ors
Catherine Gibaud KC acted for the successful Seventh (R7) and Tenth Respondents (R10), two entities forming part of an Alternative Investment Fund (AIF) structure managed by a full-scope UK AIFM authorised by the FCA and comprising a collective investment scheme for the purposes of section 235 FSMA 2000 (Fund), in the case of Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government v Urban Splash and others. The Government secured Remediation Contribution Orders against five respondents. However, no orders were made against the Seventh or Tenth Respondents.
The Government sought remediation contribution orders against eleven respondents under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 to recover almost £50 million in public funding used for building safety remediation work at seven residential buildings in Manchester. This was one of the Government’s first attempts to recover Building Safety Fund expenditure from developers and associated parties. The Tribunal had to consider inter alia the proper construction of the “association” provisions in section 121 Building Safety Act 2022 and the application of the “just and equitable” test.
The decision on “association” turned on the meaning of “control” by one corporate body over another corporate body for the purposes of s121(8) of the Building Safety Act 2022: A body corporate (X) controls another body corporate (Y) if X has the power, directly or indirectly, to secure that the affairs of Y are conducted in accordance with X’s wishes. The Tribunal considered both the means by which control may be exerted in the corporate context and the degree of power which section 121(8) requires. The Tribunal found that the PSC status of the relevant person under the Companies Act 2006 is not determinative of the question posed by section 121(8), as the PSC regime is directed towards a different statutory question. As the Tribunal found, the concept of control is concerned with practical command rather than influence and with the ability to determine outcomes rather than merely contribute to them.
On the facts, the Tribunal found that the Fund (R10) retained genuinely independent decision-making processes in relation to its acquisitions and investments. R3 did not control R10 within the meaning of section 121(8) of the BSA, and R10 was therefore not associated with R1 by virtue of section 121(5)(b). R7 was associated with R1 because of a common directorship, but that provided only the statutory gateway: taking account of the nature of the residential fund and its AIF structure, the interests of its investors and its lack of any meaningful connection with the Buildings, the Tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to make an RCO against R7.
Catherine Gibaud KC acted with Robert Bowker of Landmark Chambers, instructed by James Worthington, Mark Barley and Oliver Park of Charles Russell Speechlys.
The First-Tier Tribunal handed down its decision on 5 November 2026. Read the decision in full here.
