Health and Safety Executive v Integritas Property Group (IPG) Ltd [2025] EWHC 2613 (TCC)

December 2025

Joanna Lewis and Daniela Parfitt

The matter in Health and Safety Executive v Integritas Property Group (IPG) Ltd [2025] EWHC 2613 (TCC) examines the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) first application for an injunction under the Building Safety Act 2022 to prevent occupation of a high-risk building. The dispute arose after significant fire safety defects were discovered at Deakin’s Yard, a student accommodation development, and construction continued despite regulatory notices. The judgment highlights the HSE’s standing to seek injunctive relief, the court’s application of the American Cyanamid principles, and the growing emphasis on compliance with building safety legislation.

Key takeaways

This is the first instance where the HSE sought injunctive relief under the Building Safety Act 2022.
The case underscores the HSE’s role as statutory regulator and its willingness to take preventative action where building safety breaches pose risks.
Advertising or preparing to occupy higher-risk buildings without the required completion certificate can trigger urgent regulatory intervention.
The judgment applied the American Cyanamid principles, prioritising health and safety over economic interests and confirming that damages would not be an adequate remedy.
The court signaled that jurisdictional questions, whether HSE or local authorities should seek injunctions, will need further consideration.

The facts

On 25 November 2015, approved inspectors, Building Consents, granted building control approval for a 244-room student accommodation development in Newcastle-under-Lyme, known as Deakin’s Yard. Construction of Deakin’s Yard commenced shortly thereafter.

In September 2022, Building Consents conducted a site inspection which revealed significant fire safety defects, which were raised with representatives of Integritas Property Group (IPG) Ltd (IPG) in October 2023.

On 22 March 2024, a Contravention Notice was issued after Building Consents raised further concerns regarding the building’s condition and standard of workmanship. On 6 April 2024, Building Consents became the registered Building Control Approver and registered with the Building Safety Regulator.

The issues outlined in the Contravention Notice related to workmanship, the inadequacy of cavity barriers, and fixing of brickwork starter bars. These were considered to be breaches of the Building Regulations 2010. These issues persisted, and so on 11 July 2024 the Initial Notice was cancelled, and a cancellation notice was served, meaning building work had to cease immediately and could not resume until an application for building control approval was submitted to the Building Safety Regulator.

Despite the Cancellation Notice, Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council noticed that construction activity continued on site in July 2024. On 21 October 2024, the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) served a stop notice on IPG under section 35C(1)(a) of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA). Later that day, IPG issued a new application for building control approval to the BSR, which was not approved due to insufficient information.

In June 2025, Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service raised concerns with the BSR that units at Deakin’s Yard were being advertised on YouTube as due for occupation in August 2025. On 17 July 2025, the HSE interviewed a director of IPG under caution. During the interview it was admitted by the director that some work had occurred since the Cancellation Notice had been issued. It was accepted by the director that the timber subframe was in poor condition and that there was a lack of cavity barriers. The director also confirmed that they were aware that it would be a criminal offence to occupy Deakin’s Yard without a completion certificate. The director expressed it was not IPG’s intention to occupy the development before December 2025 once works had been completed.

On 23 July 2025, the HSE wrote to IPG seeking assurances that Deakin’s Yard would not be occupied before the issue of a completion certificate as this would constitute an offence under the BSA and in those circumstances , the BSR would have to take action to prevent occupation. Despite chasing, the HSE did not receive a response. The HSE subsequently received confirmation from estate agents that Deakin’s Yard was being advertised for rent from 15 August 2025 onwards.

The HSE’s regulatory powers

Under section 3(1) of the BSA, the HSE is obliged, as the building safety regulator for higher-risk buildings, to:

exercise its building functions with a view to securing the safety of people in or about buildings in relation to risks arising from buildings; and,
improving the standard of buildings.

Under section 11A of the BSA, the HSE “may do such things and make such arrangements as it considers appropriate in connection with any of its building functions.”

Section 13(1) of the BSA affords the HSE the power “to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to the performance of its functions.”

The HSE’s application

On 11 August 2025, the HSE applied without notice to the TCC for an interim injunction to prevent the occupation of Deakin’s Yard. The application was said to be urgent as IPG were due to let rooms to students later that week and there was a danger to the health and safety of occupants due to the lack of a completion certificate/ongoing non-compliance with regulatory requirements. Due to the urgency, the application was heard by the court on the same day.

IPG contested any allegation that unlawful occupation of Deakin’s Yard had occurred or was scheduled before the issue of the required completion certificate. IPG confirmed that it had given authority to market Deakin’s Yard for occupancy strictly on the basis that all relevant building control certificates would be issued before any residents moved in.

The decision

The HSE’s standing to apply for injunctive relief

Firstly, the court considered whether the HSE had standing to seek an injunction where the usual applicant would be the local authority. The court expressed concern about the HSE’s ability to obtain a civil injunction where usually such injunctions would be sought either by the local authority under section 22 of the Local Government Act 1972 or by the local planning authority under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

In the circumstances, the court was satisfied that ‘there is a serious arguable case to the effect that it has sufficient standing to seek an injunction to enforce the criminal law and/or to prevent a breach of the criminal law where there is strong evidence to the effect that it is imminent unless restrained by the court’. This conclusion was reached as the area concerned was within the HSE’s remit as the statutory regulator under the BSA and the local authority was unlikely to seek an injunction before the scheduled letting date. Further, the court decided it would be more difficult for the court to exercise its jurisdiction once residents were in occupation.

In concluding that the HSE had standing, the court cited the case of Broad Idea International Ltd v Convoy Collateral Ltd [2021] UKPC 24, agreeing that public authorities with statutory powers may seek injunctive relief to prevent interference with the public authorities’ responsibilities. The court stated that the issue of jurisdiction would have to be revisited in future noting that the local authority could decide that this is a matter which falls upon the HSE due to the statutory regime or alternatively, the local authority may wish to remain involved in such applications under the pre-established legislative provisions.

American Cyanamid Co (No 1) v Ethicon Limited [1975] UKHL 1

When deciding whether to grant the injunction sought, the Court considered whether the facts met the test established by the case of American Cyanimide Co v Ethicon Limited. This case established the following principles that need to be met for injunctions to be granted:

The application must show that there is a genuine arguable case to be tried.
The balance of convenience: the court must assess which party would suffer greater harm if the injunction was granted or refused.
The court must consider whether damages would be an adequate remedy.
The court will also seek to preserve the status quo in reaching its decision.

The court held that there was a serious issue to be tried as to whether the injunction is appropriate. Whilst it was the only relief sought by the HSE, the court was satisfied from the Broad Idea International case that ‘the court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction to grant such an injunction.’ With regards to the balance of convenience, it was considered that the injustice of not granting an injunction far outweighs the injustice of the injunction… any permission to occupy the premises carries with it dangers, including fire risks, which are of greater concern than even the economic interests of the defendants.’ The need to protect potential occupants, visitors and IPG from the dangers that might arise outweighed the inconvenience of interfering with existing arrangements regarding the letting of the property. The court was also satisfied that damages would not have been an adequate remedy in light of the health and safety matters that the application concerned.

The court granted the injunction sought by the HSE. However, it was deemed of ‘vital importance’ that the matter return to the court at the earliest opportunity as it concerns a novel matter regarding the BSA that requires further consideration.

Final insights

This judgment represents the first instance in which the HSE has sought an injunction in the exercise of its statutory functions under the BSA. The judgment is also a reminder of the importance of ensuring compliance with building safety legislation and obtaining the relevant approvals before higher-risk buildings can be advertised for occupancy. Failure to do so could result in the regulator taking preventative action when breaches of building safety arise and pose risks to current or future occupants.

Whilst the court’s exercise of its discretion to grant injunctive relief is fact-specific, this is the first example of the HSE enforcing its role as statutory regulator under the BSA. The court has signposted that it will have to consider in future whether the HSE can continue to apply for injunctions when the building safety risks necessitate it or whether that power should remain with the local authority.

If you have any questions regarding the information discussed in this article or how this may impact your projects or contracts, please contact Joanna Lewis and Daniela Parfitt.

Download PDF