BSR gets tough: first injunction preventing occupation

For the first time, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has exercised its regulatory function under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) to seek an injunction to prevent occupation of a higher-risk building (HRB).

The facts

The case concerned the development of a 244-room student accommodation which came within the definition of high building under the BSA. Throughout the various development stages of construction, several concerns were raised by the Building Consents (who at the time were approved inspectors relating to ‘workmanship, inadequacy of cavity barriers and fixing of brickwork starter bars’ which were considered to be breaches of the Building Regulations 2010. 

Despite an intervention notice, a cancellation notice, and stop notice, construction continued, and rooms were advertised as available for rent from August 2025. 

HSE applied for an urgent injunction without notice to prevent the occupation of the student accommodation as the building lacked the required building regulations completion certificate. 

The legal background

On 1 October 2024, HRB’s were subject to the new gateway regime which was introduced by the BSA. The gateway regime consisted of three stages, the third of which being the final stage ensuring the building meets all safety requirements and is fit for occupation. Under gateway three, occupation of the building is only lawful once the completion certification has been issued. 

Along with the new gateway regime, robust enforcement powers were also granted to the Building Safety Regulator under the BSA for breaches of the building regulations, which includes occupation without a completion certificate. 

The decision 

The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) applied the principles from American Cyanamid and found that damages would not be an adequate remedy given the health and safety matters. The TCC concluded the injustice of not granting an injunction far outweighed the injustice of the injunction as permission to occupy the premises carried with it dangers, including fire risks, which were of greater concern. There was a need to protect potential occupants, and visitors, and indeed the defendants, from the dangers that might arise.

The impact/takeaways 

As this is the first time BSR has exercised its powers under the BSA and sought an injunction to prevent occupation. We could see this case set a precedent for proactive enforcement and interim injunctions being granted without notice for HRBs which do not meet Building Regulations. This case highlights the importance which the Courts are placing on building safety and ensuring the buildings are safe for occupation and shows the BSR will not shy away from exercising its powers when it sees fit.