You would be forgiven for thinking that contractors should find little comfort in Triuva Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft vs Galliford Try Construction (UK) Ltd. In fact, this recent case offers contractors a powerful means of stepping down claims to their subcontractors which are ultimately responsible for defective works or design.  

The background to the Triuva case will be familiar to anyone who has experienced a defects claim. The claim concerned a 10-storey office block in Birmingham, constructed by Galliford Try under a design and build contract. Water ingress occurred in 2012 and spot inspections identified a number of defects in the cladding system. Remedial works began in 2015, comprising detailed investigations and implementation of a remedial scheme. 

A year later proceedings were issued against Galliford Try,  which in turn commenced a claim against its cladding subcontractor, Alumet Systems (UK) Ltd. But then there was a twist. By late 2016 the defect investigation had identified systemic cladding and curtain walling defects relating to weathertightness, fire safety, and structural integrity, and the remedial works contractor had priced solutions to each of these. With a trial date not yet confirmed but expected to be at least 12 months away, Triuva made an application to the court under civil procedure rule CPR 25(1)(1)(k), seeking an interim payment from Galliford Try in respect of the remedial costs relating to specific defects.

…