Essendi v London Property Co: why contractors should take notice
Summary
The article discusses the Technology and Construction Court’s decision in Essendi UK Hotels 2 Ltd v London Property Company Ltd, arising from remediation of dangerous ACM cladding on a hotel in Wembley. The judgment is presented as part of a wider post-Grenfell trend in which courts focus on building safety and the need to remove serious life-safety risks rather than rely on temporary mitigation measures.
Why it matters
Residential property surveyors may encounter similar building-safety and remediation issues in assessments, due diligence and defect reporting. The case reinforces the importance of identifying fire-safety risks, understanding the implications of cladding defects, and recognising that courts may prioritise remediation over mitigation.
Key points
- The case concerned a 16-storey hotel with Category 3 ACM cladding containing a polyethylene core.
- The court found the building was not in good condition because of the fire risk, despite no conventional physical deterioration.
- Mitigation measures were accepted as risk-reducing but not sufficient to remove the underlying hazard.
- The judgment reflects a broader post-Grenfell shift toward prioritising safety consequences over technical defect classifications.
- Owners and contractors may face increased pressure to document decisions and address liability for remediation costs.
This is an RPSA summary of a publicly available article. The full content remains with the original publisher.
