G15 landlord sues cladding contractor for £8m

News24.02.213.30 PM by Dominic Brady

Hyde Group is suing construction firm Mulalley for damages of up to £8m after it had to remediate unsafe cladding systems on five of its blocks in Hampshire.

The dangerous cladding system has been removed from Hyde’s properties in Gosport (picture: Google Street View)

Sharelines

Hyde Group is suing construction firm Mulalley for damages linked to the remediation of unsafe cladding systems on five of its blocks #UKhousing

Through its subsidiary, Martlet Homes, the 48,000-home landlord is seeking the damages from Mulalley on the grounds of alleged negligence and breach of contract in relation to the design of refurbishment work, after it discovered defects with the fire barriers, insulation boards and failure to repair the existing substrate.

Hyde first issued proceedings in December 2019 after it discovered the issues on the five blocks, which were clad by Mulalley between December 2006 and April 2008 at a cost of £15m. Remediation work has since been completed on the five blocks in Gosport, Hampshire.

Martlet is now seeking damages based on the cost of those remedial works as well as the costs of a waking watch system that was installed in the buildings shortly after the Grenfell Tower fire.

However, the firm denied that the alleged breaches of contract had caused any loss. It argued that regulations around combustible materials on blocks brought in by the government following Grenfell meant that Martlet would be required to replace the expanded polystyrene (EPS) in any case, meaning that the no loss would have been caused by breaches.

The case has come to light recently after Martlet wished to amend its particulars of claim, which sets out the facts on which it will seek the damages. In the latest court papers, Martlet alleges that Mulalley’s defence includes a passage that states the EPS boards used did not comply with building regulations at the time.

Off the back of that, Martlet approached the court to amend its particulars of claim, while Mulalley sought to remove the relevant paragraphs from its initial reply. Justice Pepperall agreed to allow Mulalley to strike out the paragraphs but also agreed to Martlet’s change of its particulars of claim.

Both parties refused to comment on the case as proceedings are still active.