The ruling represents one of the first significant contribution claims under the Building Safety Act to reach judgment, highlighting the growing financial exposure facing manufacturers linked to historic cladding defects.
The Technology and Construction Court heard that Mulalley had designed and delivered refurbishment works at the 54-apartment Parkside Court tower in Chelmsford, including the installation of the StoTherm Classic external wall insulation system.
Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, defects were identified within the building’s external wall system, prompting Mulalley to agree in December 2022 to remove and replace the cladding and pay compensation to the building owner, Chelmer Housing Partnership.
After Sto Limited entered administration in January 2025, Mulalley pursued a claim against its parent company, Sto SE & Co. KGaA, using the Building Safety Act’s Building Liability Order provisions.
The German manufacturer did not defend the proceedings, resulting in a default judgment being entered against the company.
Mulalley sought to recover more than £2.4m in losses arising from the remediation works. Following a review of the claim, the court excluded unrelated remedial works and legal costs before concluding that £2.03m had been reasonably incurred due to the defective cladding system.
Mr Justice Pepperall found that the primary cause of the remedial works was Sto’s marketing and supply of what he described as an inherently defective product.
The court ordered Sto Germany to pay 87.5% of Mulalley’s losses, amounting to £1.77m plus interest.
In his judgment, the judge concluded that Sto had failed to supply a product that met Building Regulations requirements and had made misleading representations regarding the performance of the StoTherm Classic system.
He also determined that the cladding system was inherently defective and had rendered the flats unfit for habitation, reinforcing the accountability of product manufacturers for historic building safety failures.
English 