United Living is pursuing a £7.3m legal claim against architect Hawkins Brown over the cost of replacing the façade system and addressing alleged fire protection defects at the Wenlock Building on Wharf Road, Islington.
The contractor is seeking £3.1m for replacing the Velfac curtain walling system and a further £4.2m to rectify alleged fire protection defects affecting structural steelwork.
Hawkins Brown had applied to have the case dismissed, arguing that United Living should have raised these claims during earlier legal proceedings, which were settled in March 2023. Under that agreement, the architect paid United Living nearly £1.6m.
However, Mr Justice Eyre rejected the application, ruling that the previous settlement covered the specific claims made at the time rather than providing a blanket release from all potential future claims.
The decision allows United Living’s latest case to proceed, although it does not determine whether Hawkins Brown was responsible for the alleged defects. The architect denies the allegations.
United Living, formerly known as United House, was appointed under a design and build contract in 2007 to convert the site into the Wenlock Building. The nine-storey development was completed in 2009.
The contractor subsequently faced legal proceedings from Workspace over alleged building defects, including combustible cladding and insulation, missing cavity barriers and inadequate fire stopping.
United Living settled the dispute by agreeing to carry out remedial works before pursuing its own claims against members of the original project team.
During the earlier proceedings, the contractor specifically excluded the cost of repairing the Velfac curtain walling system from its claims against Hawkins Brown and the other defendants.
United Living initially believed that the façade problems were mainly caused by poor installation. However, subsequent investigations indicated that the entire system might require replacement and raised concerns about its suitability for the building.
The latest proceedings also name Dovista UK, formerly Velfac, and Dantaag as defendants.
Hawkins Brown argued that United Living was aware of the possibility of bringing further claims when negotiating the earlier settlement but had failed to disclose them.
The judge found that the potential claim was still at an early stage and required further investigation at the time. United Living had neither agreed to abandon all future claims nor accepted a general release of liability.
Mr Justice Eyre therefore dismissed Hawkins Brown’s application, allowing the substantive dispute over the alleged building defects to continue.