The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) is asking the High Court to hold parent companies of some Grenfell Tower contractors liable for part of a £360m legal claim for tragedy-related costs.
The council has launched claims at the court against firms directly involved in the work, including Rydon, Arconic, Harley Facades, Artelia, Celotex, and CEP Architectural Facades.
Legal documents seen by Construction News show that it is also asking the court to issue Building Liability Orders (BLOs) which, if granted, would allow it to seek damages from some of these firms’ parent companies.
BLOs, introduced via the Building Safety Act 2022, allow courts to transfer liabilities for building safety defects from a subsidiary company to its associated or parent companies.
The fire at the west London tower block in 2017 led to the deaths of 72 people and injured more than 70 others.
The council, which itself was criticised by last year’s public inquiry into the tragedy, said last October it had spent “significant amounts of public money” on supporting the bereaved, survivors and community affected by the fire, which killed 72 people in June 2017.
It said the costs included rehousing, financial assistance and subsequent payment of compensation.
In a statement, RBKC said: “We have issued legal proceedings against a number of companies, in line with the council’s ongoing commitment to ensure those parties pay a share of the costs incurred against the public purse.”
The Grenfell refurbishment’s main contractor, Rydon, was among those that came in for heavy criticism in the inquiry’s final report last September.
Four Rydon entities are listed as defendants in the new case: Rydon Maintenance and its parent Rydon Group Ltd (RGL), plus that firm’s parent Rydon Holdings Ltd (RHL), along with Rydon Group Holdings Ltd (RHHL), which acquired RHL in 2018.
The claim document in this case said that a BLO against the parent firms should be issued because “Rydon’s profit (whether as a result of the works or otherwise) has been hived up to RGL, RHL and/or RGHL”.
Defence documents have not yet been filed in any of the cases.
Rydon’s lawyers DAC Beachcroft declined to comment on the legal action. Rydon did not respond to a request for comment.
Another claim is against Arconic, for manufacturing and supplying components of the cladding system, including Reynobond PE, and the council is also pursuing a BLO against its parent company Howmet.
“The core of Reynobond PE was a hydrocarbon and highly combustible. It should not have been used on Grenfell Tower and its presence on Grenfell Tower caused the uncontrollable spread of the fire and resulting losses,” the legal documents say.
“Howmet is, or was at all material times, associated with AAP SAS (Arconic).”
Arconic declined to comment on the case, but pointed to its statement following the inquiry in which it rejected any claim that it had sold an unsafe product.
Another case is against cost consultant on the project, Artelia Projects UK Ltd, and Appleyards, whose business transferred to Artelia, for their role in the overcladding of the tower’s rainscreen cladding system, which included insulation, the documents say.
The council is also suing insulation supplier Celotex Ltd and seeking a BLO against its parent Saint-Gobain Construction Products.
It said that Celotex “manufactured and/or supplied polyisocyanurate insulation, which included a product called RS5000. RS5000 was used as the insulation in the vast majority of the rainscreen cladding system installed on Grenfell Tower.
“RS5000 was combustible and one of the causes of the uncontrollable spread of the fire. Further, Saint-Gobain is, or was at all material times, associated with Celotex.”
It has also filed claims against CEP Architectural Facades for its manufacture of Reynobond Cassette Panels and Harley Facades, which was retained as the cladding subcontractor, the filings say.
None of the other firms, or their lawyers, responded to requests for comment.
Helen Waddell, construction disputes partner at law firm Osborne Clarke, which is not involved in the cases, said: “We expect the whole process to take many years; it needs to be fair and the requisite burden of proof must be met.”
She added: “We may well see more cases brought across the supply chain industry-wide. There are a large number of standstills and stayed proceedings in place waiting to see what happens in relation to the parties involved in Grenfell.”