Kensington and Chelsea council has launched a series of lawsuits against companies involved in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower, pursuing them for a total of £360mn plus interest over losses arising from the fire at the London high-rise apartment block that killed 72 people.
Court documents seen by the Financial Times set out claims that the local authority has brought against suppliers, subcontractors and other companies it holds responsible for the catastrophic spread of the blaze.
The parallel High Court actions, which come eight years after the worst fire disaster in the UK since the second world war, are among the highest value set of legal proceedings brought recently in England and Wales.
The council, which was itself criticised by a public inquiry into the fire last year, is suing a range of companies including Arconic Architectural Products, Artelia Projects UK, Celotex, CEP Architectural Facades, Harley Facades and Rydon Maintenance.
Kensington and Chelsea said last October that it would pursue legal claims against some of the companies involved, but it did not at the time give further details.
The court papers set out at considerable length the litigation the council is pursuing following the fire on June 14 2017, which started in a fridge in a fourth-floor kitchen before spreading rapidly through cladding up the 25-storey building. Many residents were trapped on higher floors and some died from poisonous fumes before flames reached them.
While the details of its cases against the companies vary, the council argues that alleged failings by each one contributed to the devastating progression of the fire.
Kensington and Chelsea is demanding total damages of £358mn, plus interest. Losses specified by the council in the court documents include property acquisition and renovation costs of £129mn, housing and temporary accommodation expenses of £47mn and employment and staff costs of £41mn.
Other costs cited include £18mn worth of hardship payments, as well as other support schemes. The tally also includes £970,000 for fire marshals.
“We have issued legal proceedings against a number of companies, in line with the council’s ongoing commitment to ensure those parties pay a share of the costs incurred against the public purse,” Kensington and Chelsea said in a statement.
On top of damages and interest, the west London borough is also demanding indemnity if it is found to be legally liable to the bereaved, survivors and others affected by the fire.
Kensington and Chelsea’s Tenant Management Organisation, which the borough appointed to manage its housing stock, including Grenfell, is listed as a claimant alongside the council.
The companies being sued were involved directly or indirectly in the refurbishment that completed in 2016, a project that the public inquiry found transformed what had been a structurally sound concrete building into a “death trap”.
Each company had a different role. Arconic manufactured cladding panels, which CEP turned into three-dimensional “cassettes”. These were supplied to Harley for installation on the apartment block. Celotex meanwhile manufactured insulation used in the project.
Rydon Maintenance was the “design and build” contractor, giving it broad responsibilities for the works. Artelia was the so-called employer’s agent, giving it administrative responsibilities including monitoring contractor performance.
The public inquiry last September published a damning final report that identified “many failings of a wide range of institutions, entities and individuals over many years”.
Among those found to be at fault were the UK government and the local council. The report said Kensington and Chelsea’s building control department “failed to perform its statutory function of ensuring that the design of the refurbishment” complied with building regulations.
The inquiry, chaired by former Court of Appeal judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick, found the works had been undertaken in large part to improve Grenfell’s visual appearance.
Kensington and Chelsea comprises some of the wealthiest parts of the UK, alongside neighbourhoods with significant deprivation.
The inquiry was critical of several parts of the private sector. It found the main reason why the flames spread so rapidly on the night was the presence of Arconic’s aluminium composite material rainscreen panels.
It said a range of other companies bore responsibility in different ways. They included Rydon, which the inquiry said “failed in a number of important respects properly to perform its role”.
Defence documents in the litigation have yet to be filed. The companies being sued have variously expressed sympathies for those affected, and some have acknowledged historic shortcomings, but have denied liability.
Arconic declined to comment. It has previously “acknowledged its role as one of the material suppliers” involved in the refurbishment but rejected “any claim that AAP sold an unsafe product”.
DAC Beachcroft, the law firm listed as representing Rydon in the High Court proceedings, did not comment. In submissions to the public inquiry, Rydon said it was not to blame for the specification or installation of the combustible materials and reasonably relied on specialist subcontractors.
Celotex said the claim brought by the council was “anticipated and is at an early stage”, adding that it would file a defence later this year. The company told the inquiry that “any shortcomings on Celotex’s part had no causative impact on the specification and use of its products at Grenfell Tower”.
Reed Smith, the law firm listed as representing Artelia Projects UK in the proceedings, declined to comment. Artelia previously told the inquiry that its role as “employer’s agent” was “purely administrative”.
Clyde & Co, the firm listed as representing CEP Architectural Facades in the proceedings, declined to comment. CEP said in a submission to the inquiry that its role in the refurbishment was “very limited”, adding that it “did not design any of the works” nor “specify any of the materials” used.
gunnercooke, listed as representing Harley Facades in the proceedings, declined to comment. Harley told the inquiry that it had been “misled” about products used in the refurbishment.
Kensington and Chelsea said last year that it accepted the findings of the inquiry and apologised unreservedly. The council said it had made significant changes to its operations since 2017, including through reforms to its building control service.
