Mulalley & Co Ltd v Sto Ltd and Sto SE & Co KGaA
[2026] EWHC 1552 (TCC) — TCC, 22 June 2026 (Pepperall J), Case No. HT-2024-000427
Judgment: [2026] EWHC 1552 (TCC) (National Archives)
Back to Index.
Issue
Contribution proceedings following Martlet Homes v Mulalley: apportionment of liability between the contractor and the manufacturer/supplier of the cladding render system, for an inherently defective and mis-marketed product.
Outcome
- Sto Germany took no part in proceedings; judgment in default on liability entered against it (December 2025), damages to be assessed.
- Pepperall J accepted Mulalley’s expert evidence: total remedial costs ~£3.43m, of which ~£2.03m attributable to the defective cladding system.
- Sto Ltd and Sto SE & Co KGaA (Sto Germany) held 87.5% responsible for remedial costs — Sto’s marketing and supply of an inherently defective product found to be a principal cause of the defects.
- First reported TCC judgment considering apportionment of liability between a contractor and a manufacturer/supplier of defective cladding.
Notes
- Court was reluctant, with hindsight, to second-guess the reasonableness of Mulalley’s remedial expenditure, noting Mulalley had a commercial interest in keeping costs down since it carried out the works itself.
- Encouraging for contractors seeking to push liability up the supply chain to manufacturers — but Sto Germany provided no defence, so the case may be less straightforward on contested facts.