Wallace Estates v Durkan: Case Management Lessons from the First Joint TCC-FTT Building Safety Act Hearing

In our recent article on the Technology and Construction Court Guide 2026 (the “Guide”) we discussed the introduction of Section 9, the Guide’s first dedicated section dealing with Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”) claims. The recent decision in Wallace Estates Ltd v Durkan Estates Ltd [2026] EWHC 2133 (TCC) provides the first significant example of how that guidance might operate in practice and offers valuable insight into the Courts’ approach to case management in building safety disputes.

The case arose from parallel proceedings before the Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) and the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”), both concerning remediation works at the same residential development. Rather than allowing the claims to proceed independently, the parties ultimately agreed, and the Court endorsed, a coordinated approach to case management. This included a single disclosure exercise, common witness evidence, shared expert evidence and a joint hearing before the TCC and FTT.

While the decision did not determine any substantive Building Safety Act issues, it is likely to be influential from a procedural perspective. This article considers the lessons for those involved in remediation disputes.

Background

The dispute arose from the remediation of building safety defects at Centrillion Point in Croydon. Following a Remediation Order made in the FTT against Wallace Estates Ltd (“Wallace”), Durkan Estates Ltd (“Durkan”) agreed under a separate Remediation Agreement to carry out works at its own cost.

After disputes emerged regarding the progress of the remediation works, Wallace purported to terminate the Remediation Agreement and assume responsibility for completing the works itself.

This led to parallel proceedings, with Wallace seeking a Remediation Contribution Order against Durkan and its parent company in the FTT, while Durkan commenced proceedings in the TCC challenging the validity of the Remediation Agreement termination and seeking damages.

Early identification of parallel proceedings

One of the key messages from the judgment is the importance of identifying related proceedings at an early stage. Section 9 of the Guide recognises that BSA disputes may engage both the FTT and the High Court, depending on the remedies being pursued. The judgment demonstrates that where claims concern the same building, defects or remediation project, the courts will be receptive to coordinated management.

For practitioners, this means that jurisdictional analysis should extend beyond identifying the correct forum for a particular claim. Consideration should also be given to whether parallel proceedings already exist or may be commenced in another forum and, if so, whether they can be managed together.

Coordinated evidence and disclosure

Perhaps the most significant practical aspect of the judgment is its emphasis on avoiding duplication. The Court recognised that the proceedings involved many of the same factual issues, witnesses and technical questions. Joint management was therefore considered likely to reduce costs, minimise duplication and avoid inconsistent findings.

Parties involved in BSA disputes should therefore approach evidence gathering with a broader perspective. Disclosure exercises, witness statements and expert reports may ultimately be relied upon across multiple proceedings. Early planning and coordination can help avoid the need for multiple rounds of evidence addressing substantially the same issues.

Proportionality and judicial efficiency

A further lesson is that the courts are increasingly focused on proportionality. Running parallel proceedings separately can create substantial additional costs and increase the risk of conflicting factual findings. The coordinated approach approved in this case reflects a judicial preference for procedural efficiency where disputes arise from the same underlying facts.

Parties should therefore expect judges to scrutinise procedural decisions carefully, particularly where duplicate evidence, overlapping expert disciplines or repetitive hearings are proposed. Strategic case management is no longer simply an administrative consideration but may have a material impact on the costs and progression of a claim.

However, it should be noted that the Court expressed a preference for hearing proceedings together, not formally consolidating them.

Looking ahead

The significance of the Court’s decision in Wallace Estates lies in its practical application of the principles contained within Section 9 of the TCC Guide. It demonstrates a willingness on the part of the TCC and FTT to work collaboratively where BSA disputes involve overlapping facts and remedies and provides a procedural roadmap for future cases.

Successful management of BSA litigation will increasingly require an early assessment of related proceedings, proactive engagement with case management issues and a coordinated approach to evidence. As the volume of building safety claims continues to grow, those considerations are likely to become as important as the substantive merits of the dispute itself.

If you have any questions regarding the information discussed in this article, please contact Jade Archer and Ben Boulter.