डोज़ोंस of court battles are raging over who will foot the bill to fix unsafe buildings across the UK after the devastating Grenfell Tower fire nine years ago. Almost 100 cladding, building and fire safety cases are active in London’s High Court, mostly under a new law introduced in response to the disaster that has upended liability in the construction sector. Developers, builders, architects and material manufacturers are suing one another to recover vast sums spent to replace unsafe cladding and fix other problems exposed by the blaze at the west London high-rise block in 2017, which killed 72 people.

Housebuilders including Barratt Redrow, Crest Nicholson and Taylor Wimpey — as well as several big social housing providers — form part of the complex web of litigation. The disputes, which span luxury developments, student flats and social housing portfolios, as well as commercial properties such as hotels, have a combined value of about £1.2bn, according to data compiled by litigation intelligence platform Solomonic. Lawyers said the legal wrangling had added to financial strains on construction companies that already operate on wafer-thin margins, threatening to tip losers into insolvency.

An example of the tangled web of litigation trailing in Grenfell’s wake originates 120 miles away from the tower. Developers of the Eclipse Tower in Bristol, among the city’s tallest residential blocks, knew they had a problem in the wake of the 2017 disaster. Cladding at the 18-storey building, above department store Harvey Nichols in the city centre, was similar to that used in the West London tower.

According to court documents, inspectors who opened sections of the walls to see what lay underneath found various combustible materials. In response, developer Bristol Alliance paid the main contractor on the construction, Sir Robert Mc Alpine, £19mn to undertake remedial work. But it reserved a right to sue once the building was made safe.

Bristol Alliance in 2023 sued Mc Alpine, which in turn brought lawsuits against architect Benoy and subcontractor Richardson Roofing. Benoy then sued subconsultant Arup Façade Engineering, claiming it should have spotted flaws with the building. Richardson Roofing, meanwhile, dragged insulation manufacturer Kingspan into the lawsuit, alleging it was deceived by marketing about the materials.

With everyone pointing fingers, the High Court in London has ordered a blockbuster multi-party trial for next year. Construction lawyers said it was a classic example of the post-Grenfell chain reaction of litigation, with liability passed through each stage.