Fahad Atta v HDI Global Specialty SE
[2023] EWHC 2028 (KB)
Redrow Plc & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
14 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 651
Court of Appeal
A building company challenged the government's decision to pay for repairs to buildings it built, arguing that the insurers should pay. The court said the company had a right to challenge, but the government's decision was okay because the repairs were needed urgently, even though the insurers were partly responsible.
Key Facts
- •Redrow PLC and related companies (Appellants) challenged the Secretary of State's (Respondent) decision to allocate Building Safety Fund (BSF) monies for cladding remediation to two high-rise developments Redrow had built.
- •The allocation totaled approximately £30 million, with Redrow potentially liable for reimbursement.
- •Redrow argued the Respondent failed to consider that insurers had accepted liability for the cladding defects.
- •Redrow had signed a pledge to reimburse the BSF, but argued this didn't apply given the insurers' liability.
- •A Deed of Bilateral Contract (DBC) was signed after the decision, clarifying the reimbursement process.
Legal Principles
Standing in judicial review requires a sufficient interest in the matters to which the application relates (Senior Courts Act 1981, s.31(3)). This interest is subject matter-based, not rights-based.
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Limited [1982] AC 617, 648E; R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2007] EWCA Civ 498; [2008] Q.B.365 at [61]
Judicial review claims must be filed promptly, within 3 months of grounds arising, though this doesn't guarantee promptness (CPR r.54.5(1); Maharaj v National Energy Corp of Trinidad and Tobago [2019] UKPC 5; [2019] 1 W.L.R. 983).
CPR r.54.5(1); Maharaj v National Energy Corp of Trinidad and Tobago [2019] UKPC 5; [2019] 1 W.L.R. 983
While not a formal policy, the BSF guidance is relevant as the only available guidance on allocation decisions. Decisions should follow the guidance unless there are good reasons otherwise.
BSF guidance (July 2020, updated July 2022)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Redrow had sufficient standing due to potential £30 million liability. The claim was brought promptly. The Respondent's decision was lawful; Redrow's interpretation of the BSF guidance was inaccurate, and the urgency of the works justified the decision despite ongoing insurer claims.