Urban Splash tribunal: Secretary of State v Urban Splash [2026] UKFTT 01426 (PC)

The Urban Splash tribunal decision, [2026] UKFTT 01426 (PC), concerns seven applications by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for remediation contribution orders following publicly funded fire-safety works at residential buildings in Manchester. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) issued its decision on 5 November 2026.

The respondents include Urban Splash Limited and other companies connected to the original development and later ownership arrangements. The Government sought recovery of money spent or committed through the Building Safety Fund. The financial dispute concerned work on seven buildings developed between around 2000 and 2008.

The Urban Splash tribunal proceedings are an important test of section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022. The relevant questions include which companies meet the statutory conditions for an order, whether an order against each would be just and equitable, and the appropriate level of contribution.

Urban Splash tribunal: decision and outcome

The official GOV.UK decision record provides the complete 260-page original judgment, citation [2026] UKFTT 01426 (PC), case references MAN/00BN/BSB/2024/0001-0007, decision date and tribunal members. The tribunal consisted of Judge J Holbrook, Regional Judge N Walsh and Mr A Gee RIBA. Hearings took place from 27 April to 15 May and 8 June to 1 July 2026.

The tribunal ordered payments totalling £46,500,650 (judgment paragraphs 7 to 9 and 857 to 862). It considered £60,638,548 including VAT to have been reasonably incurred or reasonably to be incurred, of which £51,510,063 was funded or expected to be funded through the Building Safety Fund. The five liable respondents are jointly and severally liable for the aggregate amount, of which £741,594 goes directly to Moho Management Company Ltd and £45,759,056 to the Secretary of State.

Orders were made against Urban Splash Limited, Urban Splash Developments Limited, Urban Splash Group Holdings Limited, Urban Splash Work Limited and Stubbs Mill LLP. Four other respondents were not ordered to pay, and claims against another two were withdrawn following settlement. These differences are potentially important to the interpretation and application of the statutory associated-body provisions.

Statutory framework

Section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 provides for a remediation contribution order, which requires a specified body corporate or partnership to contribute towards certain costs associated with relevant defects in a relevant building. The tribunal must consider it just and equitable to make an order. Whether the statutory gateway is met and whether relief is appropriate are separate questions.

The Urban Splash tribunal case is notable because the entities involved were not all in an identical position. Later group reorganisations, ownership and investments can affect whether an entity falls within a statutory category and whether the tribunal considers a contribution order appropriate on the evidence.

The decision also considered the costs of remediation and the extent to which public authorities had contributed to the circumstances in which expenditure arose. The account refers to an adjustment for governmental shortcomings, while expressly distinguishing it from an attribution of fault for particular defects.

Buildings and commercial context

The seven Manchester buildings were Burton Place, the Moho Building, Chips, Box Works and three towers known as Emmeline House, Christabel and Sylvia. Published reporting identifies disputed fire-safety matters involving external cladding, cavity barriers, fire stopping and compartmentation. Government money had supported works following the national response to the Grenfell Tower fire.

The developer disputed the scale of the expenditure and objected to making certain associated businesses liable for historic developments. In a statement reported by Place North West, the group emphasised its cooperation with investigations but criticised the potentially extensive consequences of statutory liability for related businesses.

The outcome is commercially significant for developers, owners and lenders assessing building-safety exposure. It demonstrates the importance of retaining design and construction records, understanding corporate structures and investigating previous remediation decisions, rather than judging exposure solely by the age of a building or its current value.

Related material and limits

Planning Geek’s news report on the Urban Splash tribunal examines the commercial impact. We have also covered the national cladding remediation backlog and leaseholder cost protections. Those articles provide context for the legislative framework within which remediation contribution disputes arise.

Any application of this decision to a different developer or site must take account of the statutory definitions and particular evidence. It would be unsafe to treat the reported result as making every group company automatically liable, or as eliminating the need to examine whether an individual order would be just and equitable.

The original 260-page judgment has been reviewed for the outcome, statutory interpretation, association, section 124 discretion and quantification. Its detailed reasons run to 882 numbered paragraphs, with building-specific appendices and references to existing court authorities. The decision is a First-tier Tribunal determination and may be challenged or distinguished on its facts. Gold members can access the complete original below.