The significance of Wallace Estates Limited v Durkan Estates Limited lies in its relevance to Building Safety Act litigation, including how the First-tier Tribunal and Technology and Construction Court can coordinate related claims involving Remediation Contribution Orders, overlapping factual issues and parallel proceedings.
The recent judgment in Wallace Estates Limited v Durkan Estates Limited (“Wallace”) is noteworthy not because it decides any substantive Building Safety Act dispute, but because it provides the first detailed judicial roadmap for how the First-tier Tribunal ("FTT") and the Technology and Construction Court ("TCC") can work together where parallel proceedings arise from the same building safety issues.
The judgment marks what the court described as the first joint hearing involving the President of the FTT and a TCC judge sitting together. More importantly, it demonstrates a pragmatic and collaborative approach to overlapping jurisdictional issues, reflecting a shared willingness to prioritise consistency, efficiency and proportionality over procedural rigidity.
What is the background to the dispute?
The dispute arose from remediation works at Centrillion Point in Croydon. Wallace Estates commenced FTT proceedings seeking a Remediation Contribution Order ("RCO"). Separately, Durkan commenced TCC proceedings concerning the alleged unlawful termination of a remediation agreement and seeking declaratory relief and damages.
The parties accepted that the proceedings substantially overlapped. Certain contractual and termination issues sat naturally within the TCC's jurisdiction, while the RCO application belonged before the FTT. The question was therefore not whether one forum should replace the other, but how both could deal with interconnected disputes coherently and efficiently.
How did the court apply existing principles?
One of the most striking points to note is that the court did not create any novel jurisdictional mechanism. Instead, it was emphasised that the ability to coordinate proceedings already exists within the procedural frameworks governing both forums.
For the TCC, the court highlighted the considerations applicable to consolidation and coordinated hearings, including:
- overlap of parties, facts and issues;
- avoidance of inconsistent findings;
- reduction of duplicated costs and procedural steps;
- the stage reached in the proceedings; and
- whether similar benefits can be achieved through alternative case management measures.
The FTT's equivalent powers also allowed proceedings raising common issues to be heard together. Significantly, the tribunal's overriding objective adds flexibility and effective use of specialist expertise as express considerations.
The judgment illustrates that both forums approached the issue through broadly similar principles. Although operating under different procedural codes, the FTT and TCC recognised that their respective powers were directed toward the same fundamental aims: fairness, efficiency, proportionality and consistency.
How did the FTT and TCC seek to avoid duplication and inconsistency?
The reasoning reveals a clear concern with the practical realities of modern Building Safety Act disputes. It recognises the "significant overlap of issues and facts" between the two sets of proceedings. Separate hearings would risk inconsistent factual findings while requiring duplicate disclosure exercises, witness evidence, expert reports and hearing time. By contrast, joint management offered a mechanism for determining common factual matters once and for all. That practical focus is evident throughout the judgment. Rather than allowing jurisdictional boundaries to create inefficiency, the FTT and TCC sought to make those boundaries workable.
The result was a jointly managed process in which findings of fact at trial would be binding across both proceedings, common disclosure and evidence would be used for both cases, and a coordinated hearing structure would reduce unnecessary duplication.
What influence did the new TCC Guide have?
The judgment also demonstrates the growing institutional cooperation between the two forums in the Building Safety Act sphere. The court referred to the Fourth Edition of the TCC Guide (“the Guide”), particularly the newly introduced section addressing Building Safety Act proceedings. The Guide emerged from the work of the TCC/BSA Working Group, established in 2024 and involving representatives from both jurisdictions. Its stated objectives include "consistency of factual findings, avoidance of duplicated evidence and cost, and a single, or joint, judicial mind" where appropriate.
Although the proceedings in Wallace did not fall squarely within the formal definition of "TCC BSA Proceedings" in the Guide, the court nonetheless applied the same underlying principles. It even suggested that the Guide may in future be expanded to encompass a broader range of cases suitable for joint management. This reinforces the message that coordinated working between the TCC and FTT is not simply an exceptional response to unusual circumstances, but an approach that may become increasingly important as Building Safety Act litigation develops.
How can practical cooperation work between the FTT and TCC?
Perhaps the most valuable aspect of the judgment for practitioners is its detailed explanation of how procedural differences can be managed. The court addressed issues including judicial composition, disclosure, witness evidence, expert evidence, costs and appeals. In each instance, the emphasis was on finding practical solutions rather than becoming constrained by procedural differences. For example:
- a TCC judge can also sit as a tribunal judge, facilitating integrated decision-making;
- a single set of witness statements and expert reports can serve both proceedings;
- disclosure can be conducted under a harmonised regime centred on the more detailed TCC requirements;
- cross-use permissions can avoid technical restrictions on deploying evidence between proceedings; and
- costs can be tracked through separate coding structures to reflect the differing costs regimes.
These are not merely administrative directions. They provide a practical framework through which the FTT and TCC can operate as complementary forums while preserving their distinct jurisdictions and procedural identities.
What does Wallace signal for future Building Safety Act litigation?
The wider significance of Wallace lies in the clear signal it sends to parties involved in building safety disputes. It shows that overlapping proceedings before two specialist forums are not necessarily a jurisdictional problem but can be treated as a case management opportunity. The FTT and the TCC recognised that their respective procedural powers, while different in form, are underpinned by common objectives. Those objectives support a coordinated approach that reduces cost, avoids duplication and promotes consistent outcomes.
For construction and building safety practitioners, the message is clear. Where disputes generate proceedings across both forums and involve substantial factual overlap, the courts are prepared to adopt innovative but principled case management solutions. Rather than operating in isolation, the FTT and TCC have demonstrated a willingness to work together in a pragmatic and common-sense manner where the circumstances justify it.
As Building Safety Act litigation continues to mature, Wallace may be remembered less for the underlying dispute than for establishing practical foundations for cooperative case management between two increasingly interconnected forums.