(especially for n 4) George Clarke’s Remarkable Renovations (Channel 4) takes as its starting-point home improvement and extension projects in the UK which have been left incomplete, often because ‘the builder’ has walked off site, or has been excluded by the homeowner, following a dispute. The TV show does not engage with the financial or legal aspects of such scenarios, often involving issues of breach, termination and entitlements to money (for work done and as damages) on both sides, as well as questions of the available forms of redress (formal and informal). See sections [4.12] (on remedies for breach) and [9.2.4] (on termination) in the book and their updates below; on possible regulation of home improvement traders, see the update below to section [6.5.4].

(especially for the main text to n 7) A research report from the UK’s Fabian Housing Centre (supported by the New Homes Quality Board), On The Ladder (July 2026) notes:

Demand for new-builds from first-time buyers appears to be falling. This has contributed to a 39 per cent reduction in the number of new-build homes sold in 2024-25 compared to 2000-01. This lack of demand is due to the higher cost of new-build properties and because they are perceived to be low quality (although they can be more energy efficient).

Unpacking the concept of ‘quality’: the NHBC July 2025 report – see the update below to section [2.6.3] – suggests that for new homes it has five aspects, though some overlap:

• Perceived quality – the quality of finishes, aesthetics and materials used
• In-built quality – structural and technical details
• Design quality – the overall design of a home and how well it functions
• Fundamental quality – achieving compliance with minimum standards
• Transactional quality – the service provided through the purchasing process.

For the 2026 edition of the Victorian Guide to Standards and Tolerances (now published by the Office of the State Building Surveyor and Building and Plumbing Commission): https://www.bpc.vic.gov.au/resource-hub/guides/guide-to-standards-and-tolerances-2026

‘The man on the Clapham Omnibus’ was further analysed by Lord Reed (with whom Lords Mance, Kerr, Sumption and Hughes agreed) in Healthcare at Home Ltd v The Common Services Agency [2014] UKSC 49:

[1] The Clapham omnibus has many passengers. The most venerable is the reasonable man, who was born during the reign of Victoria but remains in vigorous health. Amongst the other passengers are the right-thinking member of society, familiar from the law of defamation, the officious bystander, the reasonable parent, the reasonable landlord, and the fair-minded and informed observer, all of whom have had season tickets for many years. 

[2] The horse-drawn bus between Knightsbridge and Clapham, which Lord [Justice] Bowen is thought to have had in mind [as Collins MR suggested in n 33], was real enough. But its most famous passenger, and the others I have mentioned, are legal fictions. They belong to an intellectual tradition of defining a legal standard by reference to a hypothetical person, which stretches back to the creation by Roman jurists of the figure of the bonus paterfamilias. As Lord Radcliffe observed in Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696, 728: ‘The spokesman of the fair and reasonable man, who represents after all no more than the anthropomorphic conception of justice, is and must be the court itself.’

[3] It follows from the nature of the reasonable man, as a means of describing a standard applied by the court, that it would [be] misconceived for a party to seek to lead evidence from actual passengers on the Clapham omnibus as to how they would have acted in a given situation or what they would have foreseen, in order to establish how the reasonable man would have acted or what he would have foreseen. Even if the party offered to prove that his witnesses were reasonable men, the evidence would be beside the point. The behaviour of the reasonable man is not established by the evidence of witnesses, but by the application of a legal standard by the court ...

Respectfully deferring to Gething J (Buck v BGC Residential Pty Ltd (ACN 052 543 450) [2026] WASC 134 [80]), we will, for the Australian equivalent to the Clapham Omnibus, refer in future editions to the ‘person on the Mandurah train (who, I add, in their daily commute would have gone past many of the estates in which the houses the subject of this action were being built).’ 

On the Bolam test (n 35), applied to the liability of valuers in English (and Scots) law, see the update below to section [5.9.6]. On its continued currency, with ‘the Bolitho addendum’ (from Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232), see Parvaty v National University Hospital (S) Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 7 at [64]ff (Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi J).

(especially for n 65) The UK New Homes Quality Board now publishes data searchable by developer name (for those developers actively registered with it), showing their 2025 scores in the annual National New Home Customer Satisfaction Survey. The results from the 2026 National New Home Customer Satisfaction Survey and HBF Star Ratings are now published.

(especially for n 70) The current NZ Government has adopted policies intended to encourage residential renovation work needing building consent (like-for-like replacement often not needing consent) and other smaller projects. As part of this, the Building Amendment Bill 2026 will repeal the Building Research Levy Act 1969 (NZ). The plan appears to be to replace completely BRANZ’s research levy – payable on projects over NZ$20,000 in value. The separate Building Levy on successful consent applications over NZ$65,000 in value under the Building Act 2004 (NZ) ss 53ff and 402(1), under the Building (Levy) Regulations 2019 (LI 2019/310), may be maintained. This goes directly to MBIE, part in future perhaps to be ring-fenced for research. The Minister claimed (November 2025) that overall levy costs will fall for all, some no longer having to pay at all, but BRANZ’s guaranteed funding and independent national status would end. There are uncomfortable echoes in these proposals of the privatisation of the UK’s Building Research Establishment in 1997; and its role in testing materials implicated in the Grenfell Tower fire. On other changes in the Bill, see the update below to section [5.13.3].

Insights into the frequency of different categories of defects occurring during construction of new homes in the UK come from analysis by third-party warranty providers, and by their own building control subsidiaries. Premier Guarantee, second in volume of business to the NHBC, published its Industry Insight Report 2025. This summarised observations of defects or non-compliances made by its surveyors or Registered Building Inspectors between July 2020 and July 2024 – ‘all resolved to the satisfaction of the surveyor and in compliance with our Technical Manual or building regulations’. 

For individual homes (mostly detached), the largest category in the period (35% to over 40%, depending on the year) concerned external walls, followed in descending order – but all far behind in frequency – by roofs, internal walls, upper floors, windows and doors, basements, ground floors, foundations, balconies and drainage. This conflates all inspections; for the final pre-handover inspection, observed potential defects were at levels between 12% and over 18%, depending on the year. 

Analysed for non-compliance with Building Regulations (presumably in E&W alone), structure (Part A) and fire safety (Part B) were almost equal top scorers for problems, with Part C (Site Preparation and Resistance to Contaminants and Moisture) in the next category below. Problems in relation to Part L (Conservation of Fuel and Power) showed a notable year-on-year increase in relation to both houses and apartments. Figures for apartments show roof structures as problematic far more often than for houses, with more than 60% noted on inspection in 2024.

The report notes similar patterns in claims under Premier Guarantee’s warranties: defects in external windows and doors, external walls, roofs, drainage and water services were all categories of problems regularly reported by homeowners.

(especially for the main text to n 89) On extending buildings’ use safely beyond their design life – or repurposing them for a different new life – see the CROSS-UK Topic Paper An Ageing Built Environment (December 2025). From its introduction:

The challenge lies in understanding, maintaining, and safely extending the life of assets that were not designed with modern expectations in mind. Materials may have degraded, documentation may be incomplete, and design philosophies may differ from today’s standards. Decisions about continued use must be informed by careful investigation, sound engineering judgement, and a clear understanding of risk. Safety must be central to this process. Structures that are not properly assessed or maintained can pose serious hazards, and the consequences of failure can be severe.

The opportunity is equally significant. Reusing or repurposing existing structures supports sustainability, reduces carbon emissions, and aligns with the principles of the circular economy. It helps to reduce the environmental and financial costs of demolition and new construction, and can preserve heritage and character in the built environment...

Doing nothing is not a viable option. By recognising both the potential and the limitations of existing structures, we can make choices that are safe, sustainable, and economically sound. This is a shared responsibility that requires collaboration and competence, as well as a long-term view.

(especially for the main text to n 98) For multi-issue and multi-party litigation (including cross-claims) arising out of pre-fabricated modular bathroom units installed in residential high-rise towers in NSW, see Buildom Pty Ltd v Rawson Constructions NSW Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1608 (Coleman J). 

The Consumer Legislation Amendment Act 2026 (Vic) – these provisions to come into force on a date to be proclaimed – adds to the Building Act 1993 (Vic) via a new pt 2A a detailed specific provisions around modular (‘pre-fabricated work’). For NSW pre-fabricated buildings, see pt 3 div 2-4 of the Building (Approvals and Practitioners) Act 2026 (NSW) (update to section [3.6.1] above). 

In February 2026, major UK home developer Bellway opened its own new Home Space factory in Mansfield (Notts), prefabricating major components for new homes, claiming to improve quality, speed and productivity.

The August 2025 NHBC Foundation report, Maintaining Quality in the Design and Construction of 1.5 Million Homes, confirms the close association between the level of construction activity and defects (as evidenced by claims under third-party warranties like the NHBC Buildmark): as activity increases, so normally do defects. Cutting this well-established knot, in the context of UK government policy to build 300,000 new homes a year is therefore a challenge, intensified by post-Grenfell regulatory changes; the report suggests a range of measures, principally to do with training, skills and labour capacity.

(especially for n 152) In January 2026, the FCA fined two former Carillion finance directors £232,000 and £138,000 respectively for failing to reflect their knowledge of the company’s serious financial difficulties in public statements or to alert Carillion’s Board or audit committee. The FCA’s earlier fine of £237,000 in relation to Carillion’s former CEO, Richard Howson, stood after he withdrew his referral to the Upper Tribunal; in October 2023, the Insolvency Service had imposed an eight-year ban on his acting as a company director. In May 2026, the Financial Reporting Council added further fines and bans, preventing all three and two other senior accountants for Carillion from acting as accountants for defined periods.

In another Australian waffle slab example (this time from rural NSW), the trial judge held that the builder of the plaintiffs’ new home was in breach of the basic statutory warranties of quality under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) s 18B (see Table 4.2 in the book), as well as of the duty of care under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 s 37 (see section [5.12.4] in the book and its updates below): Di Lullo v JG King Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 213. At a later hearing, the Di Lullos argued that the cost of remediating the damage to the house, as well as the defectively installed waffle slab, would exceed the cost of demolition and rebuilding. In Di Lullo v JG King Pty Ltd (No 3) [2026] NSWDC 218, Cole DCJ relied on the principles of law set out by Ball JA in the NSWCA in 85 Princess Pty Ltd v Fleming – see the update below to section [4.13.5]. In the light of this and updated expert evidence, the judge rejected the defendant’s claim that the owners were guilty of contributory negligence; on the measure of damages, she concluded at [92]:

Had the contract been performed, the Di Lullos would have been handed a structurally sound house on a stable slab, with the expectation that the house would have a life of decades of soundness, in about mid-July 2017. All of the slab would have continued to rest on the natural soil for the life of the house... The closest scenario to the performance of the contract, in time and in delivery of a structurally sound house on stable footings which will continue to comply with AS 2870, is the demolition and rebuilding scenario, which should, therefore, form the basis for the award of damages [A$1,250,000 – the maximum the District Court can award]. This is the most reasonable course. It would be unreasonable to impose on the Di Lullos the many uncertainties and vulnerabilities to further damage and repair costs involved in the remediation proposed by the Builder.

For a contrasting recent English example of inadequate foundations and a different outcome on remedy, see Mallas v Persimmon Homes in the update below to section [4.12.3].