Published Saturday 1 August 2026 · By the JustEng team
A busy month in the Technology and Construction Court, with the first judicial quantification of a contribution claim against a cladding product supplier and two adjudication enforcements refused. Each of these decisions changes what claimants need to prove — and therefore what expert capacity firms need to buy, which is why disputes judgments are one of the better leading indicators for forensic engineer recruitment and expert witness hiring.
Mulalley v Sto: first quantification of a cladding contribution claim
In Mulalley & Co Ltd v Sto Ltd & Sto SE & Co KGaA [2026] EWHC 1552 (TCC), the High Court assessed for the first time how a contractor’s contribution claim against the supplier of a defective external cladding system should be quantified. Mulalley refurbished Parkside Court in Chelmsford from 2006 using the StoTherm Classic system and pursued the claim by relying on the supplier’s alleged direct liability to the building owner under section 149 of the Building Safety Act 2022. Summarised in Mayer Brown’s July construction law review.
Hiring angle: Section 149 claims turn on materials science and system-level fire performance rather than workmanship alone, so demand is rising sharply for forensic engineers who can evidence product behaviour as well as installation defects. We are seeing consultancies compete hard for chartered engineers with combined façade and fire testing backgrounds — a genuine talent shortage.
Essendi v London Property Company: landlord ordered to replace ACM cladding
Judgment in Essendi UK Hotels 2 Ltd v London Property Company Ltd [2026] EWHC 1354 (TCC) was handed down on 5 June and dealt with a series of cladding and fire safety issues arising under a commercial lease. The operator of a multi-storey Wembley hotel brought proceedings after discovering combustible ACM cladding on the external walls; the court ordered the freehold landlord to replace it within set deadlines and allowed the tenant to claim damages. Case note from 4 Pump Court.
Hiring angle: Extending cladding remediation obligations into commercial leases widens the client base for fire and façade investigation work well beyond residential blocks, and that is already translating into new forensic engineering vacancies at surveying and loss adjusting practices.
Belong v Seddon: adjudicator’s decision refused enforcement
In Belong (Construction) Ltd v Seddon Construction Ltd [2026] EWHC 1275 (TCC), the court declined to enforce an adjudication decision, holding that the adjudicator had breached natural justice by deciding the dispute on a factual and legal basis the parties had not argued, without first inviting comment. Analysis in Walker Morris’ Adjudication Matters.
Hiring angle: Decisions like this push parties to front-load expert evidence into the adjudication itself rather than relying on the adjudicator to fill gaps, which sustains steady candidate demand for delay, quantum and technical experts capable of working to compressed 28-day timetables.
High Tech v WLP: £2m enforcement refused over disputed JCT contract
The TCC refused summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision worth roughly £2m, finding the defendant had a real prospect of establishing that the JCT contract relied on did not exist. The dispute proceeds to full trial to determine the true contract between the parties. Commentary from Irwin Mitchell.
Hiring angle: Document authenticity and contract formation disputes are pulling forensic document and records specialists into construction claims teams alongside traditional engineering experts, broadening the skill mix that disputes consultancies are headhunting.
Durkan Estates v Wallace Estates: high bar for repudiatory breach of remediation deals
Mr Justice Constable refused a freeholder’s application for summary judgment following purported termination of a remediation agreement, giving guidance on the high threshold for establishing repudiatory breach of time obligations in remediation contracts and cautioning against summary applications in disputes heavy with factual and expert evidence. Note from Mayer Brown.
Hiring angle: Where the court signals that programme and progress questions must go to trial on expert evidence, planning and programming experts become the bottleneck resource — a recurring driver of senior recruitment in delay analysis.
Manhattan: buckling beams trigger evacuation and DOB investigation
On 7 July, workers at an active construction site on East 42nd Street in Midtown Manhattan observed structural support beams beginning to buckle, prompting the FDNY to establish a frozen zone across several blocks and evacuate surrounding buildings. No collapse occurred and no injuries were reported; Department of Buildings inspectors and engineers are investigating the cause. Reported by ABC News.
Hiring angle: Near-miss investigations of this kind generate immediate structural forensic instructions and, longer term, tighter oversight regimes that expand temporary works and independent checking roles — consistently strong areas of structural engineer recruitment on both sides of the Atlantic.
JustEng is a specialist engineering recruitment agency headhunting forensic engineers, expert witnesses and disputes professionals for consultancies, insurers and law firms. Hiring? Register your vacancy and we will map the expert market for you. Considering a move into forensic work? Submit your CV, explore forensic engineering recruitment or benchmark yourself against our forensic engineering salary guide.