Devastating blow for ‘Cardiff Cladiators’ in their fight for justice

Martin Shipton

Campaigners who have fought for years to be compensated for defective cladding and other structural faults on homes they bought have suffered a devastating setback after a High Court ruling went against them.

In April 2024 housing developer Redrow finally agreed to fund major repairs at the Celestia apartment complex in Cardiff Bay following tests five years before that found faults including “very poor or non-existent” fire barriers between flats and cladding, and insulation that did not meet standards.

But leaseholders – who call themselves cladiators (sic) – remain aggrieved that they have not been compensated for the loss in the value of their properties.

Gareth and Sheila Wilson brought a test case against the building contractors responsible for the poor workmanship, saying the value of their two flats had depreciated and their ability to earn rent from letting them out had been diminished.

Notional

But in a High Court judgment released on May 30 2025, Judge Keyser KC ruled against the Wilsons, saying their losses had been notional rather than actual.

After the judgement was handed down, Mr Wilson, a retired solicitor who represented himself and his wife, released a statement that said: “We are shocked and very disappointed.

“Regardless of the strict legal position, the decision reflects an immorality that is endemic in the industry. There is not the slightest indication that Redrow are ‘stepping up to the plate’ or doing anything other than to discourage claimants, scaring them away with their aggression and spending power.

“Far from doing anything that might be over and above their strict legal obligations, Barratt Redrow [as they now are] are doing their utmost to defeat leaseholder claims, using their £300m provision not to compensate leaseholders, but to wear them down.

“Last week (on May 21 2025) in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd, in which ironically Barratt Redrow were the successful party, a Supreme Court super panel gave a unanimous judgment confirming that the definition of those who could sue under the Defective Premises Act ‘would embrace a major property company which acquires the building as an investment or a bank which acquires an interest in a dwelling when lending on the security of a mortgage’.

“The extraordinary thing about this URS judgment is that it means Barratt Redrow and others like them will not even have to bear the cost of repairs and other damages arising from their defective developments. In many instances, including Celestia where Barratt Redrow is claiming a 100% indemnity from Laing O’Rourke [the building contractor], they will be able to claim indemnities from others.

“The judgment this week in Wilson v Redrow by comparison is a crushing disappointment. It is a salutary reminder of the cost and complexity of litigation in the High Court – particularly the Technology and Construction Court (TCC), which is really designed to handle disputes between giant corporations with deep pockets – is fraught with risk. Access to justice is, in practice, limited to the Barratt Redrows of this world who can afford it.

“The judgment struck out almost the entirety of the Wilson claims for compensation, not because they were entirely without merit, but because they were not sufficiently pleaded. Although the Wilsons were representing themselves at the time of the application, the claim on which their losses were based had been drafted by experienced counsel, instructed by a large law firm with experience in the TCC.

“Diminution in value: this is by far the largest and most important claim, not just for the Wilsons but for other Celestia leaseholders and tens of thousands like them. The court struck it out.

“While striking out the Wilsons’ claims for diminution in value, the judge said Mr and Mrs Wilson ‘are seeking to claim damages representing alleged diminutions in value of the flats at specific past dates on the basis of defects identified at those dates, despite the fact that they retained the flats thereafter. The flats were not sold on these dates or, indeed, at all. The alleged losses were not sustained. This head of claim will be struck out.’

“He then said if the leaseholders have valid claims resulting from previously unknown defects in the flats, they are entitled to damages reflecting the consequences of the defects; this will typically be diminution in value, and it may also include loss of use value and something to represent the disturbance resulting from the defects and any remedial works. Thus, a claim for diminution in value is permissible and Mr and Mrs Wilson chose to buy the flats. They are in principle entitled to claim for the losses resulting from the defects.

“Why then was the claim struck out? The key seems to be that the Wilsons did not sell. The judge does not appear to consider at all that selling was not viable. This is hugely significant for leaseholders of defective flats across the UK.”

Trapped

Mr Wilson went on to argue that it has long been acknowledged by government and by national inquiries that there are tens of thousands of leaseholders who have been ‘trapped’ for years in flats they cannot sell: “They are still trapped. In Celestia, this has been the case for almost 10 years,” he stated.

“If this judgment is right, those leaseholders cannot claim for the loss in value of their flats because they cannot sell them. This is adding insult to injury. Many of those leaseholders would dearly love to sell those flats. This leaves them in limbo.

“The court also struck out the claim for loss of rental income. Again, despite striking out the claim, the court said this loss of rental income is in principle a valid head of claim. But, if the Wilsons wish to pursue it, they must particularise an actual loss and seek permission to amend. If the Wilsons wish to advance a claim for damages representing the value of the risk of liability to third parties in respect of repayment of rent, they should formulate the claim properly and quantify it and apply for permission to amend.”

Cost

Referring to the prohibitive cost of going to law, Mr Wilson stated: “Redrow spent £36,000+ on the application. The Wilsons are now liable for Redrow’s costs.

“On the face of it, all is not lost: the claims can be amended and resubmitted. Redrow may oppose this and, of course, it is far from certain that the court will accept the amended claims. There is further considerable risk.

“More relevant is the cost and the toll on the claimants. The cost is prohibitive. The Wilsons ran their claim on a shoestring. They cannot afford the quality of legal representation they would need to match Redrow. The same is true for other individuals.

“The personal toll is also unbearable. The Wilsons issued this claim in November 2019, almost six years ago. Redrow has still not admitted that Celestia is defective. A six-week trial is set for February next year. The cost is astronomic. There is considerable risk.

“Any appeal is to the Appeal Court. This, again, would be very expensive and fraught with risk. If an appeal was successful, it would have the additional advantage of reversing the order for costs.

“The impact of this judgment is so inequitable and iniquitous that gut instinct says it must be wrong and therefore appealable. Gut instinct doesn’t count for much, though. Money talks.

“Nevertheless we are looking closely at it and hoping for a miracle or, at least, a white knight.

“If the court is right that leaseholders cannot claim diminution in value unless they sell but that they can claim if they do sell, this is likely to produce an avalanche of sellers. This, in turn, will produce an oversupply and will depress prices even further.

“There is likely to be major disruption in this market and the downward spiral will continue.”

Mr Wilson added: “The judge quotes no authority for the proposition that losses were not sustained by the Wilsons, because the flats were not sold. Nor do any of the cases referred to by the judge support the proposition. On the contrary, the cases are authority for the proposition that claimants need not have sold in order to claim diminution of value, nor (unlike the Wilsons) indicate any present or future intention to sell. This is no more than the application of ordinary principles of English law under which damages are claimed: you do not have to sell your car in order to claim damages from another driver who has crashed into it.

“If I had a £300m fighting fund, I would appeal this judgment in a heartbeat and I would instruct Barratt Redrow’s KC in the URS v DVB case to argue it for me. If I had a £30m fighting fund, I would do the same.

“If I only had £3m, I might need to choose a less expensive KC. If I had less, I might not be able to afford a KC at all and if my fighting fund was already exhausted after six years of litigation my only choices are to do it myself or give up.

“There are claimants in this litigation who, despite the judge’s clarification that a diminution in value claim is a claimable head of loss, are not claiming it because they cannot afford the cost or risk involved. It’s both scandalous and heartbreaking.

“CMCL [Celestia Management Company Ltd, which represents the leaseholders] has already spent millions of pounds on legal and other costs and its once healthy reserve has been decimated. The directors are under huge pressure every day about whether they are doing the right thing or whether they might end up being sued.

“Ironically, if 30,000 affected leaseholders in the UK each contributed £1,000, we would have a £30m finding fund. But the developers and builders and cladding suppliers have seen to it that leaseholders are fire-fighting on all fronts, exhausted and broke. The giant corporations must be feeling proud and their shareholders much wealthier.”