AC-2024-LON-0001595 - [2025] EWHC 2182 (Admin)

Mr Litton submits that it was irrational not to investigate whether Rydon was fit to undertake the works, and, in particular, not to inquire as to evidence that might have demonstrated that Rydon had changed since the time of the initial refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. Essentially, submits Mr Litton, the Defendant’s approach has led to a situation whereby the “sins of Rydon Maintenance” are being visited on other Rydon group companies despite those having a positive track record of remediation in respect of other buildings.

Sir James submits that the test is one of rationality, and that, in this contractual context, there was no obligation to investigate unless not doing so would amount to not acting reasonably, in which case the Claimant would have a contractual remedy in any event. Furthermore, given the statutory approach to group companies in this context and Rydon’s corporate structure, it was not unreasonable not to dissociate Rydon from Rydon Maintenance entirely, and to consider the question of fitness accordingly.