Alec Chen
May 2026
A Highly Commended entry in the SCL’s Hudson Prize, published in the SCL Journal: Spring 2026
This paper examines the ‘just and equitable’ requirement for a remediation contribution order under the Building Safety Act. It examines the case law and the factors courts have treated as relevant and irrelevant and considers whether private law theories – fault-based, cost-based and choice-based – reflect the courts’ approach to the just and equitable requirement for making an RCO. This analysis could be relevant to the appeal before the Supreme Court in Triathlon Homes, and whether the Court of Appeal adopted the correct approach to the ‘just and equitable’ requirement. The paper contributes both theoretical and practical insights for practitioners seeking to understand and respond to claims for remediation costs under the Building Safety Act.
Section I: Case law on the ‘just and equitable’ requirement – Section II: Building safety and private law – Section III: Fault-based theory – Section IV: Cost-based theory – Section V: Choice-based theory – Hierarchy of liability – Associate liability – Relevant factors – Section VI: When is it not 'just and equitable' to make an RCO? – Common directorship – Unnecessary and disproportionate costs – Conclusion
The author: Alec Chen is a Legal Assistant at Keating Chambers
Text: 13 pages