This article reflects the law as stated on 1 September 2026.
The split jurisdiction in the Building Safety Act 2022
A now-familiar feature of Part V of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) is that jurisdiction is divided between the Technology and Construction Court and the First-tier Tribunal. The court has jurisdiction for claims involving building liability orders (s130 BSA) and applications for information orders (s132 BSA). The First-tier Tribunal has jurisdiction over remediation orders (s123(2) BSA) and remediation contribution orders (s124 BSA).
This duality of jurisdiction permits the same building, and the same defects in that building, to be the subject of parallel litigation in the court and the tribunal. The split jurisdiction was presumably introduced by Parliament to take advantage of the different expertise on offer (for example, leasehold and service charge expertise in the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), construction defects expertise in the Technology & Construction Court (TCC)).
The possibility of parallel proceedings in respect of the same building does, however, introduce the possibility that the same or similar factual and technical topics may be considered by both the court and the tribunal. This brings with it an inherent potential for overlap, duplication and, at worst, inconsistency. Until now, there has been no specific mechanism in either forum to address that.
The latest edition of the Technology and Construction Court Guide (the Guide), published on 1 July 2026, now considers this possibility of parallel proceedings head on, while preserving the distinction between the two jurisdictions embedded in the BSA.
The Building Safety Act Questionnaire
Building Safety Act work is addressed in a new Section 9 of the Guide. Section 9 is concerned with any proceedings that include either or both of ss130 and 132 BSA. Such proceedings are referred to in the Guide as “TCC BSA Proceedings”. For those types of proceedings, claimants/ applicants must now accompany their claim forms, or notices as the case may be, with a Building Safety Act questionnaire in the form of new Appendix L to the Guide. Practitioners may note, however, that it is likely that the definition of ‘TCC BSA Proceedings’ will be updated in future, to include related TCC claims suitable for case management under the principle in Section 9: Wallace Estates Limited v Durkan Estates Limited [2026] EWHC 2133 (TCC) at [15].
The Building Safety Act questionnaire requests information from the claimant/applicant about the ‘building’ in respect of which TCC BSA Proceedings have been issued. It does so presumably because it is to the ‘specified building’ that the statutory wording of s130 BSA is directed (see further BDW Trading Limited v Ardmore Construction Limited (No.2) [2025] EWHC 434 (TCC); 219 Con. L.R. 1, at [13]). Section 9 therefore acts to refocus the court’s case management by reference to the building, rather than solely by reference to the claim. For those Building Safety Act claims which concern multiple buildings, the answers to the questions posed by the questionnaire may of course be different in respect of each building, and would need to be addressed by the claimant/applicant in the questionnaire.
Of most interest is that the questionnaire seeks information from the claimant/applicant on whether any other proceedings have been commenced, or are contemplated, in the FTT or in the TCC in relation to the same building and to which the applicant/claimant is (or is contemplated to be) a party. The question does not limit responses to those proceedings that concern the BSA. Nor does it limit responses solely to proceedings commenced, or to be commenced, by the applicant/claimant. The scope of the information sought is therefore potentially quite broad.
The requirement to disclose ‘contemplated’ proceedings in respect of the building may be included to assist the court to ensure that case management directions capture all foreseeable proceedings, and to avoid directions rapidly becoming obsolete. Since the court recently confirmed in Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited v Ardmore Construction Limited [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC); 225 Con. L.R. 1, that it has jurisdiction under s130 BSA to make anticipatory BLOs, any such contemplated action must also now be included in the claimant/applicant’s questionnaire. This may require parties to reveal their hand earlier than previously expected. Plainly, the applicant/ claimant may not be able to include details of proceedings contemplated by other parties, but it appears to be a requirement to disclose those of which it is aware.
The Guide does not detail the specific consequence if a party fails to include in its questionnaire information that it reasonably could or should have included. Paragraph 1.1.2 of the Guide sets out the general requirement that parties are expected to follow both the letter and the spirit of the Guide, and that a failure to comply may result in sanctions. For mild and inadvertent omissions in the questionnaire, there may be no material ramifications imposed. In more extreme cases, perhaps where key material is omitted or where material is omitted intentionally, the court may use its full range of case management powers including, plausibly, the use of costs sanctions.
The Allocation CMC
Section 9 provides that, following receipt of the questionnaire, the TCC judge reviews the claim/notice and questionnaire and determines next steps. This may include an Allocation CMC or an order for further submissions to determine any matters on the papers. The Allocation CMC is a new form of hearing, designed to address the case management of multiple proceedings in the FTT and the TCC in relation to the building. The Allocation CMC is expressly in addition to the pre-existing case management provisions in the Guide.
In preparation for the Allocation CMC, the Guide demands cooperation from the parties to the TCC BSA Proceedings, and also from parties to any related FTT BSA Proceedings. In the appropriate case, and following the spirit of the Guide, it is plausible that those entities anticipated to be parties to any ‘contemplated’ proceedings may also be notified or involved at this stage.
Attendance at the Allocation CMC is an additional cost to the parties, and will require earlier consideration by the parties of wider case management questions previously permitted to be left until later. The benefit of such a hearing is that the parties have the opportunity to coordinate case management of the proceedings in different forums and with different rules, which itself presents an opportunity to save costs and time. It may also present an opportunity to contest the information included in the questionnaire itself, to make the court aware of proceedings ‘contemplated’ by the defendant/respondent of which the claimant/applicant was not aware and, potentially, to consider related wider case management issues. It is not, however, a substitute for the CMC proper. The Allocation CMC is expressly limited to one hour (unless otherwise ordered), and there does not appear to be an obligation to make oral submissions (paragraph 9.2.7(c) of the Guide).
No express guidelines are provided in the Guide on the circumstances in which the court will seek to case manage together all proceedings in respect of the same building. Principles applicable to the types of decisions to be made at the Allocation CMC can be found in Wallace Estates Limited v Durkan Estates Limited [2026] EWHC 2133 (TCC). Although not arising directly from Section 9 of the Guide, the case offers a useful starting point for those facing their first Allocation CMCs in the coming weeks and months. In particular, in considering whether and how to case manage two sets of proceedings, the court emphasised familiar principles derived from the CPR and from the FTT Rules. These include whether it is likely to better dispose of the proceedings, to further the overriding objective, to deal with the cases expeditiously and fairly, to save costs and to reduce the risk of any inconsistent findings.
Where the criteria for joint case management are met, the court emphasised in Wallace at [21] its preference for an order that proceedings be heard together, rather than formally consolidated. This translated to an order that sought to resolve any differences between the CPR and FTT Rules. Matters of evidence were largely unified. Since the costs regimes between the court and the tribunal are very different, however, the parties were ordered to maintain a three-way cost code regime; one each for TCC work, for FTT work, and for work common to both.
In respect of the final hearing, paragraph 9.2.5 of the Guide requires consideration of whether it is desirable for the FTT BSA Proceedings and the TCC BSA Proceedings related to the same building or buildings to be determined at the same time and by the same judge in a single hearing. The parties in Wallace agreed that position (at [22] of the judgment) albeit in Wallace the court ordered a final hearing before a court/tribunal composed of two members. That outcome, of a single hearing of multiple proceedings, should not be regarded as the default position at Allocation CMCs though. The court emphasised that each set of proceedings retained its separate identity, together with its own procedural rules and judgment. This in turn preserves the distinction presented in Part V of the BSA.
Conclusions
Building Safety Act work is a fast-moving area. The Guide is likely to be updated in due course to reflect those changes and any lessons learned from the operation of new Section 9 of the Guide. For now, parties should take heed of the requirement for early cooperation and coordination across existing and contemplated proceedings, and to be ready to propose sensible case management directions in respect of the same.
