Liability orders sought in £113.3m Deptford fire-safety dispute

The development and the fire

The Arches contains 89 flats and 10 commercial units. Construction News reports that developer Circle 33 appointed Inspace Partnerships Regeneration & New Homes Ltd, then a Willmott Dixon subsidiary, to design and build the mixed-use scheme. Its report draws on court documents supplied by litigation analytics firm Solomonic.

Construction started in 2008. Practical completion was certified on 1 June 2010, and Housing for Women, known as H4W, acquired the freehold on or after 15 June that year. The development comprises the Southern, Retained and New World blocks.

Inspace underwent several name changes after receiving the contract. It became Willmott Dixon Housing in 2009, Willmott Partnership Homes in 2016 and WPHV in 2019. WPHV entered administration on 22 December 2020 and was dissolved on 30 August 2024.

Circle 33 also became part of a different organisation. It merged with Affinity Sutton Homes in January 2018 to form Clarion Housing Association. Clarion says Circle 33’s liabilities transferred automatically to the new association through that merger.

H4W says a fire on 20 May 2020 brought the alleged construction and fire-safety problems to its attention. According to its court claim, the blaze began with a barbecue on a balcony and caused damage that exposed defects elsewhere in the construction.

The alleged defects

H4W alleges that the fire revealed problems extending beyond the immediate damage. Its case raises concerns about fire spreading through the blocks’ structural frames and the consequences of a sufficiently intense blaze starting lower down or within a building.

The association says such a fire, if not controlled in time, could cause progressive structural collapse. It also alleges that rapid fire spread involving the frame could put residents at risk of death or serious injury. These are allegations in the proceedings, not established findings.

The extent of the survey evidence is disputed. H4W acknowledges that comprehensive intrusive surveys have not yet been completed across the development. The five Willmott Dixon-related companies say only one of the three buildings has been inspected and challenge whether the alleged defects have been demonstrated.

Residents remain in the Southern and Retained blocks. H4W says it has introduced interim measures to reduce potential risks and that those residents can safely stay. The New World Block has been vacated.

Alongside its preferred solution for the whole development, H4W has submitted alternative remediation options. Clarion disputes the scale of the alleged defects and argues that demolition and rebuilding would be neither necessary nor proportionate.

The liability claim

H4W’s main action is against Clarion Housing Association and its parent, Clarion Housing Group. Clarion denies that claim. It argues that, if H4W proves the alleged defects, responsibility for causing them rests with Inspace as the design-and-build contractor.

Clarion has therefore brought an additional claim under the Part 20 procedure. That claim depends on H4W establishing liability in the main proceedings. It is not an acceptance by Clarion that H4W’s allegations are correct.

The additional action seeks building liability orders under section 130 of the Building Safety-records-103m-in-extra-building-safety-costs) Act 2022. The legislation allows the High Court to extend certain building-safety liabilities to an associated company where it considers that doing so would be just and equitable.

In particulars of its additional claim dated 2 June 2026, Clarion asks for the five companies to be made jointly and severally liable with WPHV. Its request covers any relevant liability under the Defective Premises Act or arising from a building-safety risk.

Clarion also seeks damages for breaches of the Defective Premises Act 1972 and the building contract. The additional proceedings therefore concern both the alleged responsibility of the original contractor and whether relevant liabilities can be extended to associated businesses following its dissolution.

The companies’ defence

The five companies accept that they are associated with Inspace for the purposes of sections 130 and 131 of the Building Safety Act. They nevertheless deny that Clarion is entitled to the orders it seeks. Their admission about the corporate relationship does not extend to accepting the underlying allegations.

In their defence, the companies do not admit the existence of fire-safety defects or breaches of building regulations. They argue that H4W has not provided a persuasive basis for establishing either the existence or the extent of the defects alleged in the main action.

They also say no relevant liability has yet been established. On that basis, they dispute Clarion’s entitlement to building liability orders, rather than accepting that their association with Inspace is enough to justify extending liability to them.

The companies say they intend to take an active part in defending the underlying allegations at the main trial. They want Inspace’s liability, the question of whether any building liability order should be granted, and the financial extent of any order to be determined there.