header-logo header-logo

24 October 2025
Issue: 8136 / Categories: Legal News , Landlord&tenant , Housing , Construction , Health & safety
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Clarity on cladding

233321
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022

The tribunal decided that ‘cladding remediation’ covers any unsafe outer-wall cladding, regardless of when installed or whether it stems from a ‘relevant defect’, meaning works over 30 years old may still qualify. The case—concerning London’s Centre Point House—ensures leaseholders cannot be billed for removing unsafe materials, affirming Michael Gove’s pledge that residents should not bear remediation costs.

The tribunal rejected the landlord’s narrow interpretation and confirmed that ‘unsafe’ need not mean only fire risk. Patel calls the ruling a major clarification of Parliament’s intent to protect homeowners and a reminder that statutory wording must be read literally, not limited by implication.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll