Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 AUGUST 2026

Are Cladding Manufacturers Liable For Unsafe Cladding?

Shepherd and Wedderburn
Shepherd and Wedderburn
Contributor
Shepherd and Wedderburn

Shepherd and Wedderburn

We are an independent law firm, headquartered in Scotland, delivering high-quality legal advice and...

View firm profile
Explore more from Shepherd and Wedderburn

The Technology and Construction Court's decision in Mulalley v Sto Ltd provides crucial guidance on quantifying contribution claims against cladding manufacturers in post-Grenfell litigation. The ruling demonstrates how the Building Safety Act 2022 enables parent companies to be held liable for their associates' defective products, with the court ordering an 87.5% contribution from the manufacturer for misleading marketing and supplying inherently defective cladding systems.

United KingdomReal Estate and Construction

The post-Grenfell legal landscape continues to reshape the construction sector. In the recent decision of Mulalley & Co Ltd v Sto Ltd & Sto SE & Co. KGaA, the technology and construction court (TCC) provided guidance on the quantification of a contribution claim against a cladding manufacturer, alongside a demonstration of how the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) can be used to hold parent companies liable for their ‘associates’.

The background

In December 2006, Chelmer Housing Partnership Ltd (Chelmer) engaged the contractor, Mulalley & Co. Ltd (Mulalley), to design and build refurbishment works at Parkside Court, a residential tower block in Chelmsford. Mulalley subcontracted the cladding works, specifying the use of StoTherm Classic System.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from