United Living defects claim survives court challenge

United Living (South) can pursue a claim of approximately £7.35m over alleged façade and structural fire-protection defects at the Wenlock Building in Islington after the High Court rejected an application by architect Hawkins Brown to halt the proceedings. The Technology and Construction Court ruled that a March 2023 settlement did not prevent the contractor from bringing the later claims.

Mr Justice Eyre’s judgment of 3 November 2026 concerns the scope of the earlier settlement, a proposed strike-out for abuse of process, and an alternative application for summary judgment. It does not determine whether the building was negligently designed or constructed, whether the defendants caused the alleged defects, or what damages, if any, are payable. Those substantive issues remain to be tested.

The dispute has its origins in a conversion project at 50–56 and 60 Wharf Road, undertaken by United Living when the business was known as United House. The company was appointed under a design and build contract in 2007, with Hawkins Brown engaged as architect. The nine-storey residential development, subsequently known as the Wenlock Building, was completed in 2009. Its later history included claims over the performance of the building’s façade and fire-safety arrangements.

Workspace pursued United Living over alleged defects in the conversion works, including combustible external materials, missing cavity barriers, and inadequate fire stopping. The contractor settled that litigation and subsequently sought recovery from members of its project team. The later dispute arose because further investigation of the Velfac façade led United Living to consider additional claims that had not been advanced against Hawkins Brown in the earlier action.

The 2023 settlement between United Living and Hawkins Brown involved payment of approximately £1.575m by the architect. In the subsequent proceedings, United Living seeks around £3.142m associated with replacement of the Velfac curtain wall system and approximately £4.209m for alleged deficiencies in the fire protection of structural steelwork. Both are claimed amounts, not costs established or liabilities awarded by the latest ruling.

United Living had previously excluded the Velfac system from the case against the architect, initially considering the defects more likely to concern workmanship. Subsequent technical investigations led it to revisit that position. The dispute illustrates a practical difficulty with complex remediation: opening up assemblies and examining design and product records may alter the proposed cause or extent of a defect after a first set of repairs has been agreed.

Hawkins Brown argued that the further claims could and should have been pursued during the earlier litigation, and that bringing them separately was an abuse of process. It also argued that the settlement and related legal principles barred the new proceedings. The court therefore examined the earlier pleaded claims, the settlement wording, and the circumstances in which United Living had considered the Velfac allegations, rather than deciding whether the curtain wall or structural protection was defective.

The judge dismissed the strike-out application and refused the alternative summary judgment relief. The settlement compromised the matters then in issue; it was not construed as a general release of every possible claim connected with the project. Nor did the circumstances justify stopping the later action as an abuse of the court’s process, despite Hawkins Brown’s argument that the potential claim had been known before the 2023 agreement.

Settlement language can therefore become central when investigations into a building’s performance are continuing across several systems. A contractor may have identified an immediate remedial scope while separately assessing whether design, product selection, or installation contributed to other reported defects. However, the court’s conclusion turns on the wording and circumstances of this settlement, and does not make all unlitigated claims automatically recoverable after an earlier dispute is resolved.

The alleged defects concern two technically distinct parts of the building. Curtain walling must achieve the required weather resistance and other specified façade performance, while its interfaces with floors, compartments, and fire stopping have to match the building’s fire strategy. Fire protection to structural steelwork addresses the required fire resistance of loadbearing members. Establishing whether either system fell short, and who was responsible, would require evidence about the relevant design obligations, specification, installation, and resulting losses.

Dovista UK, formerly Velfac, and Dantaag are named in the action alongside Hawkins Brown. The dismissal of the preliminary applications allows the case to continue, but does not resolve the underlying technical disputes, causation, any limitation arguments, or recoverable sums. The next substantive stage of the proceedings, rather than this procedural decision, will determine the parties’ liability, if any.