Partner specialising in professional risk, discipline, construction and insurance disputes at Weightmans LLP
After almost 7 years, on 4 September 2024, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry will release its Phase 2 Report. In advance, I have set out some thoughts on matters to bear in mind as we digest that report and consider its implications moving forwards: https://lnkd.in/e2RSxBDm There will no doubt be much to reflect on and consider: we @Weightmans will be monitoring matters closely and stand ready to assist clients as they navigate what is likely to be a period of yet further uncertainty. #Grenfell #BuildingSafety #Inquiries
Mike Grant
3mo
Very helpful and thought provoking Tom
Technical Designer
3moYou make a good point... "S.2(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005, (under which the Inquiry was constituted), specifically prohibits the Inquiry ruling on liability. Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the Chairman, has to to-date been a model follower of the rules, and although sub-section 2 says that inquiries should not be inhibited by the likelihood of liability being inferred from established facts or recommendations, the Report is very unlikely to be as definitive as many would hope. We expect there will plenty of criticism of various parties in the Report, but what that then translates to may be a much more difficult question to answer." ... but one of the central questions which Martin Moore-Bick might take a view on is whether developers, consultants and contractors were entitled to choose to rely on the Ministry published statutory guidance for Requirement B4(1). Notably the approval under Section 6 and 7 of the Building Act 1984 of Class 0 in Approved Document Part B. They did not have the specialist knowledge of manufacturers and test authorities in the market for product certification to Class 0 using BS 476 Part 6 and 7 as Paragraph 13b. They did not have (previously unpublished) Ministry research that showed Class 0 was unreliable.