Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 AUGUST 2026

Quantifying Contribution In Post-Grenfell Cladding Claims: Mulalley v Sto

Gowling WLG
Gowling WLG
Contributor
Gowling WLG

Gowling WLG

The firm The firm’s lawyers speak English, French, Russian and Ukrainian. The firm’s client base...

View firm profile
Explore more from Gowling WLG

The Technology and Construction Court has delivered a significant judgment in a post-Grenfell cladding dispute, awarding £1.77 million in contribution against a German parent company that failed to defend proceedings. The case demonstrates how Building Liability Orders under the Building Safety Act 2022 can reach overseas parent companies when UK subsidiaries become insolvent, and provides a detailed framework for quantifying remedial costs and contribution percentages in construction defect claims.

United KingdomReal Estate and Construction

In Mulalley & Co. Ltd v Sto Ltd & Sto SE & Co. KGaA [2026] EWHC 1552 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) assessed quantum on a contribution claim brought by a main contractor against the German parent of a cladding system supplier, following a default judgment that the parent had not defended.

The judgment provides a worked example of how courts quantify remedial costs and contribution in post-Grenfell cladding claims under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) and the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.

Key takeaways:

  • It illustrates the TCC’s approach to quantifying remedial costs and contribution (here, 87.5% / £1,772,312.17) in a cladding claim where the product supplier’s parent did not participate.

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