\u00a312m it initially sought<\/a>\u00a0in 2021.<\/p>\nHBGL added that \u201cthe likely cost… may prove significantly more than this\u201d, as the full scope of remediation works \u201cremains uncertain\u201d.<\/p>\n
But Balfour Beatty said many of HBGL\u2019s claims were \u201cvague [and] unparticularised\u201d. The contractor also said that it used materials that met safety standards at the time.<\/p>\n
Balfour Beatty subsidiary Mansell Construction (now Balfour Beatty Regional Construction) was contracted by developer JG Colt to design and construct the 22-metre tall site for \u00a315.2m in 2008, completing work in 2009.<\/p>\n
But the claimant said it started to find faults in the Hive following completion. In particular, it flagged fire safety defects on the facade and substantial water ingress.<\/p>\n
HBGL accused Balfour Beatty of \u201cfail[ing] to exercise reasonable skill and care in its design of the works\u201d, in breach of its JCT design-and-build contract.<\/p>\n
The contractor is also accused of breaching the Defective Premises Act 1972, and causing \u201cnumerous defects\u201d on the high-rise site.<\/p>\n
HBGL said that it found facade defects in 20 different places on the site. Balfour Beatty used Eternit and Standard Trespa rainscreen cladding panels \u2013 HBGL claimed that the latter would not have been allowed by a \u201creasonably competent designer\u201d.<\/p>\n
The claimant said that the Trespa panels did not comply with the Building Regulations of the time.<\/p>\n
HBGL also said some cavity barriers were missing and that others were installed \u201cinadequately\u201d. The \u201cineffective\u201d cavity barriers could \u201cprovid[e] an unhindered route for fire and smoke spread\u201d, it said.<\/p>\n
It also said that Balfour Beatty was responsible for the design and installation of a faulty ventilation system and for \u201cwidespread\u201d water ingress across the site.<\/p>\n
In addition, HBGL said that fire doors in the Hive had not been installed in accordance with industry standards or \u201cgood industry practice\u201d.<\/p>\n
And the provision of passive fire protection within the building \u201chas not been carried out in accordance with the Building Regulations\u201d, it added.<\/p>\n
HBGL said the defects caused it to \u201csuffer loss and damage\u201d, and that remediation will take around 18 months in total.<\/p>\n
It added that the defects will cause it a \u201csignificant loss of rental income\u201d.<\/p>\n
The \u00a334.4m claim includes the remediation works, design consultant costs and the impact on its rental income. HBGL is also claiming interest of 8 per cent per year.<\/p>\n
\u2018A dump of photographs\u2019<\/h3>\n Balfour Beatty has denied liability for the defects, saying the case had been \u201casserted principally in generalised and global terms, of alleged groups of defects\u201d.<\/p>\n
It added: \u201cThe nature, extent and totality of the case is not articulated or understood.\u201d<\/p>\n
The contractor said HBGL\u2019s evidence was nothing more than \u201ca dump of photographs\u201d, which were neither annotated nor clearly linked to assertions made in the particulars of claim.<\/p>\n
Balfour Beatty also denied any \u201cmaterial workmanship defects\u201d on its part, saying that the Standard Trespa cladding panels did meet building regulations.<\/p>\n
It added: \u201cHBGL does not assert a systemic failure for all panels. Instead, it asserts vaguely that Standard Trespa Panels were used inconsistently.\u201d<\/p>\n
Balfour Beatty also said that the project\u2019s architect Broadway Malyan was responsible for design omissions in the cavity barriers. Its defence document also mentioned it had launched court proceedings against that firm over the cavity barriers issue.<\/p>\n
The contractor said the passive fire protection claim was \u201cunparticularised\u201d and it also denied the claim about the fire doors.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere appears to be no criticism of the doors themselves,\u201d it said. \u201cInstead, the allegations appear to be limited to asserted gaps around door frames.\u201d<\/p>\n
In addition, Balfour Beatty pushed back against the water ingress claim, as the first complaint was made 12 years after site completion of the Hive.<\/p>\n
It said it was \u201cnot responsible for the maintenance of the Hive, nor for any failure to maintain the Hive\u201d.<\/p>\n
The contractor also said plans to decant the building were \u201cneither necessary nor reasonable\u201d, and were not caused by Balfour Beatty.<\/p>\n
HBGL had also not \u201cfully articulated\u201d its case to justify the size of its \u00a334.4m claim, Balfour Beatty\u2019s defence document added.<\/p>\n
The claimant said Kier was appointed in September 2023 under a preconstruction services agreement (PCSA) to develop an internal and external remedial works scheme for the Hive, at a total cost to date of \u00a3959,000.<\/p>\n
\u201cCosts continue to be incurred under the PCSA, and further particulars will be provided as and when any such further costs become known,\u201d HBGL said.<\/p>\n
But Balfour Beatty said that HBGL \u201cacted unreasonably\u201d by appointing Kier \u201cin a non-competitive environment\u201d without a competitive tender.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The UK\u2019s biggest contractor is engaged in a drawn-out \u00a334.4m legal case over defects at a London student accommodation site it completed in 2009. Balfour Beatty has denied allegations it was responsible for \u201csignificant defects\u201d on the six-storey Hive building in Bethnal Green, according to court documents seen by Construction News. The claimant, which owns …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":90643,"featured_media":478251,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false},"categories":[527,79552,578],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n