Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd

In one of the most important post-Grenfell cladding cases, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) ruled in favour of Martlet Homes Ltd, awarding around £8 million in damages against contractor Mulalley & Co Ltd for defective external wall insulation (EWI) systems installed on several residential tower blocks in Gosport.
This case — the first substantive High Court judgment on cladding defects since Grenfell — established critical legal principles on building safety compliance, the scope of contractor responsibility, and recoverable remediation costs. It continues to shape regulatory and legal approaches within the construction sector.
Key Facts

• The works involved installing an external wall insulation system with polystyrene insulation and decorative render.
• After the Grenfell Tower fire, Martlet commissioned investigations that revealed:
• defective installation,
• missing and defective fire barriers,
• inappropriate fixing techniques, and
• compliance failures against the requirements of the Building Regulations in force at the time.
• Martlet undertook extensive remediation, including complete replacement of the cladding system, and sought to recover these costs from Mulalley.

Court Findings1. Installation Defects Were the Primary IssueThe court found widespread:

• missing fire barriers
• incorrectly installed cavity barriers
• defects in fixings and render system
• These breaches alone justified full system replacement.

2. Contrary to Mulalley’s Position, Regulatory Compliance at the Time Was Not MetMulalley argued that the system complied with 2005 regulations and that full replacement was unnecessary.
The court disagreed, holding that the works:

• did not meet Building Regulations even at the time of construction,
• failed to provide “adequate resistance to the spread of fire,”
• and therefore required comprehensive remediation.

3. “Betterment” Arguments RejectedMulalley argued Martlet was receiving a better system than originally installed.
The court confirmed that when remediation addresses life-safety defects, betterment does not reduce damages.
4. Waking Watch Costs Were RecoverableCosts for waking watch patrols — over a substantial period — were allowed as reasonable mitigation measures.
Financial ImpactThe judgment resulted in:

• ~£8 million damages awarded to Martlet Homes, covering:
• cladding replacement,
• investigation works,
• waking watch, and
• related mitigation costs.

This was one of the first high-value post-Grenfell defect awards, setting a benchmark for subsequent claims across the UK.
Wider SignificanceThis case has become a cornerstone precedent for construction and fire safety litigation:

• First major cladding judgment after Grenfell.
• Established that contractors can be held liable even if defect risks were not widely appreciated at the time of construction.
• Clarified that:
• installation defects,
• non-compliant materials, and
• inadequate fire protection
• justify full cladding replacement under Building Regulations.
• Frequently cited in later Building Safety Act-related disputes.

For many legal commentators, Martlet v Mulalley marked the point at which UK courts began to adopt a much firmer stance on historic construction quality and fire safety compliance.