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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll