黑洞社区

The row between residents of One Hyde Park and its builder Laing O鈥楻ourke over repairs at the development has deepened with furious owners claiming the contractor has 鈥渨alked away from its responsibilities鈥� to fix a series of defects at the luxury flats scheme in London.

In a statement, residents accuse the contractor of 鈥渟tringing them along鈥� over repairs needed at the complex, which they claim will cost 拢35m to put right.

Among the issues that have hit the scheme, which overlooks Hyde Park and includes a 拢175m penthouse, are problems with the ductwork and corroding pipes.

Residents said: 鈥淒efects were discovered from 2014 onwards and for the past decade Laing O鈥橰ourke has carried out ad hoc remedial work whilst refusing to agree to an appropriate settlement.鈥�

Details about the dispute became public when O鈥橰ourke chief executive Cathal O鈥橰ourke wrote to clients three weeks ago saying that one of its dormant companies, Laing O鈥橰ourke Construction South, which built One Hyde Park, was about to be shut. Companies House records show the firm went into liquidation on 28 February.

In his letter, O鈥橰ourke wrote: 鈥淟aing O鈥橰ourke Construction South was recently the subject of a legal claim relating to a historic development and, despite our best efforts to reach an amicable solution on this matter, our counterparty did not engage fully with us in order to reach an agreement.鈥�

Although O鈥橰ourke did not name the project, it emerged the scheme at the centre of the dispute was One Hyde Park which it completed in 2009 and which opened its doors two years later.

One Hyde Park residents say they were forced to begin legal action in 2021 after failing to reach an agreement with the contractor over the repairs.

The claim has been brought by One Hyde Park Limited (OHP) which owns the freehold of the building and is in turn owned by the residents.

They said: 鈥淭he dispute between OHP and LOR [Laing O鈥橰ourke] was not 鈥榬ecent鈥� as LOR suggest, it has been going on for almost a decade. Moreover, the suggestion that OHP 鈥榙id not engage fully鈥� with LOR is preposterous.

鈥淲hile the parties engaged in settlement discussions, LOR鈥檚 offers to carry out the remediation works came with unacceptable caveats and the compensation offered by LOR was insufficient to fund such works by a third party.

鈥淲ith hindsight, OHP suspects that during this period LOR was pursuing a deliberate strategy of stringing along OHP in the hope of delaying the time when it would have to pay damages or carry out remedial works, leaving OHP with no option but to launch litigation in 2021.鈥�

They added: 鈥淒espite OHP seeking assurances regarding the financial health of LOR from LOR and its parent companies, and LOR continuously defending and participating in these proceedings, OHP was shocked and dismayed to receive a letter on 12 February 2025, shortly before trial, indicating that LOR Group was not prepared to continue to fund the litigation and LOR plc鈥檚 subsequent announcement that it was placing its subsidiary in liquidation.

鈥淭his action can only be seen to be an attempt to avoid the very substantial judgment we expect in OHP鈥檚 favour.鈥�

The court hearing on 27 February at the T&C Court in London was held without representatives from Laing O鈥橰ourke attending, a residents spokesperson said, with a judgement from Mrs Justice Jefford expected in the next few weeks.

The residents added: 鈥淟aing O鈥橰ourke has contested the claim throughout, at huge legal cost, but just as our case and demand for 拢35m compensation was about to face the scrutiny of the court room, it walked away from its responsibilities.鈥�

In a statement, Laing O鈥橰ourke said: 鈥淟aing O鈥橰ourke has worked extensively over the past decade to try and find an amicable resolution to this issue with One Hyde Park鈥檚 management company.

鈥淲e were bitterly disappointed that, despite extensive negotiations, multiple offers of compensation and an offer to undertake remedial work for free, One Hyde Park鈥檚 management company continued to pursue a costly litigation process against Laing O鈥橰ourke Construction South, a dormant subsidiary that had not traded since 2011 and had no assets.

鈥淪adly, this matter could have been resolved years ago if One Hyde Park鈥檚 management company had approached matters in a more professional and constructive manner.鈥�