Introduction
Introduction
The Claimant, Rydon Group Holdings Limited (“Rydon”), is the parent company of Rydon Maintenance Limited (“Rydon Maintenance”), which was the principal contractor for the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower before the tragic fire in 2017 and was a Core Participant in the subsequent Grenfell Tower Inquiry (“the Inquiry”). On 28 February 2024, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (“the SoS”) made three decisions relating to the remediation of unsafe cladding on three high-rise residential buildings for which Rydon was the developer (“the Cable Street Buildings”). Those decisions were: (a) to determine that Rydon is a Designated Participant Developer (“Designated PD”) and therefore “unfit” to carry out the remediation works (“the Designation Decision”); (b) to direct that remediation should take place through the Building Safety Fund (“BSF”) pursuant to Clause 7.7(B) of the Self-Remediation Terms (“SRTs”) of the contract between Rydon and the SoS (“the Clause 7.7(B) Decision”); and (c) pursuant to Clause 13.2 of the SRTs that the Cable Street Buildings should remain within the BSF and should not be transferred to Rydon for remediation in any event even if Rydon was not a Designated PD (“the Clause 13.2 Decision”).
Rydon challenges these decisions on various public law grounds; leave having been granted by Lang J at a permission / interim relief hearing on 10 December 2024. The first three Interested Parties are the Resident Management Companies (“RMCs”) responsible for each of the Cable Street Buildings. The Fourth Interested Party (“KDG”) is the managing agent for the RMCs.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- Background to the contract between Rydon and the SoS (“ the Contract ”)
- Building Safety Act 2022 and RAS Regulations
- Relevant contractual provisions
- Rydon enters into Contract and joins RAS
- The process leading to the Decisions
- Since the decisions
- Agreed List of Issues
- Amenability to and Scope of Judicial Review
- Amenability - Discussion
- Ground 1 – Breach of Natural Justice
- Ground 1 – Discussion
- Ground 2 – Breach of Tameside duty
- Ground 2 - Submissions
- Ground 2 - Discussion
- Ground 3 – Failure to take account of Material Considerations
- Ground 3 - Discussion
- Grounds 4 & 5 – Predetermination / Improper Motive
- Ground 6 – Wednesbury irrationality / Failure to provide reasons
- Conclusions
![AC-2024-LON-0001595 - [2025] EWHC 2182 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)