Clear judicial guidance on ‘relevant defect’ under the Building Safety Act 2022
On 6 January 2026, the First‑tier Tribunal (“FTT”) handed down judgement in the Canary Riverside Estate case giving clear judicial guidance on the meaning of a “relevant defect” for the purposes of s.120 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA 2022”).
The BSA 2022 was introduced primarily as the government’s legislative response to the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy in 2017.
The judgment in the Canary Riverside case is widely recognised as a landmark ruling shaping the threshold test for identifying building safety defects in fire‑safety and structural risk cases.
The FTT’s findings have immediate practical implications for landlords, managing agents, developers and fire‑safety professionals, particularly regarding cladding liability, remediation strategy and the interplay between expert risk assessments and statutory duties.
The background
The Canary Riverside Estate in London comprises 280 private residential apartments across four towers—Belgrave Court, Berkeley Tower, Eaton House and Hanover House—together with a hotel, serviced apartments, health club and restaurants, all of which are “relevant buildings” under s.117 BSA 2022.
The Secretary of State brought two applications in relation to seven external wall systems used across the estate, seeking:
- a Remediation Order (RO) under s.123, and
- a Remediation Contribution Order (RCO) under s.124,
against multiple corporate respondents, including Canary Riverside Estate Management Limited, Octagon Investments Limited, Yianis Holdings Limited and Riverside CREM 3 Limited.
This dispute centred on whether certain construction conditions posed a “building safety risk” and whether that risk was sufficient to constitute a “relevant defect.”
What Is a “Relevant Defect”?
Section 120 (2) of the BSA 2022defines a “relevant defect” as a defect which:
- arises from anything done (or not done) in connection with relevant works, and
- causes a building safety risk.
The core dispute in this case was whether the statutory phrase “building safety risk” implies a minimum threshold—for example, a risk that is intolerable, substantial or above a particular qualitative level. The respondents argued that minor or low‑level risks should not qualify.
Key findings from the FTT
- Any risk is sufficient—no threshold test applies
The FTT held that any risk, however small, to the safety of people arising from:
- the spread of fire, or
- the collapse of the building or any part of it,
is enough to constitute a “building safety risk” for the purposes of s.120.
In doing so, the FTT expressly rejected arguments that a defect must exceed a minimum level of danger. Words such as “tolerable,” “low,” “medium,” “high,” or “ordinarily unavoidable” are absent from the statute and must not be read in.
- Compliance at the time of construction is not decisive
The FTT confirmed the existence of a relevant defect is judged at the date of the hearing, using current knowledge of building safety science. Whether the works complied with Building Regulations at the time of installation is therefore not the relevant question.
- PAS 9980 plays a different role
The FTT emphasised the distinction between:
- identifying a relevant defect (s.120), and
- determining whether and what level of remediation is required.
PAS 9980 is a British Standards Institution (BSI) systematic methodology for fire risk appraisal in multi-storey buildings. The FTT said PAS 9980 is relevant to remediation assessment, not the statutory test for whether a defect exists. A system may be rated “low risk” under PAS 9980 yet still meet the statutory definition of a relevant defect.
- FTT findings on the External Wall Systems
The FTT examined seven wall‑type configurations present across the development, ultimately finding:
Wall types found to contain relevant defects:
- EWT 01 – Masonry cavity wall
- EWT 05 – Curtain wall and spandrel panels
- EWT 06 – EPS render on blockwork on balconies
- EWT 02 – Zinc cladding (agreed by parties)
- EWT 03 – EPS render on concrete block (agreed)
- EWT 04 – EPS render on plywood (agreed)
Experts for both sides accepted that a building safety risk existed for three systems, and the FTT, after analysing the remaining four, found defects in six of the seven systems overall.
The wall type system found not to contain a relevant defect:
- EWT 07 – Reconstituted stone cladding
The Tribunal was not satisfied this system presented a building safety risk amounting to a relevant defect.
Impact of the judgment
- A wide and claimant‑friendly test
By ruling that even a small level of risk is sufficient, the FTT has set a low statutory threshold, increasing the likelihood that building owners will be found to have relevant defects requiring investigation, potential remediation, and possible cost liability.
- Limits of risk‑rating arguments
The decision puts clear limits on the defensive use of PAS 9980 “low‑risk” ratings and historic regulatory compliance when responding to claims under the BSA.
- Implications for complex estates
The ruling reinforces that large mixed‑use estates—particularly those with varied wall‑type construction—may face estate‑wide façade reviews and potential multi‑party recovery actions, similar to those seen in Vista Tower and other high‑rise litigation.
The FTT’s 6 January 2026 decision delivers unprecedented clarity on the interpretation of “relevant defect” under the Building Safety Act 2022. Its confirmation that any safety risk is sufficient—combined with its refusal to impose a threshold of materiality—significantly widens the scope of statutory liability for building owners and developers.
While further appeals and higher‑court consideration remain possible, this ruling is now a central reference point for ongoing and future fire‑safety and structural claims under the BSA.
The Hamlins Real Estate Disputes team has expertise in both commercial and residential matters. We seek to obtain the best outcome possible for every client, no matter how big or small the issue may be. If you would like a conversation to find out how we might help you, please get in touch.