Studio E’s Grenfell role has prevented it from fully closing down

Companies House do،ents seen by the AJ s،w the practice is still in the voluntary liquidation process four years after it began winding down in early 2020 – an insolvency procedure that began during the second phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

The inquiry’s chair, Martin Moore-Bick, said in his final report, published on Wednesday (4 September), that Studio E had committed many significant failings and errors while overseeing the refurbishment of the tower in 2016.

These included operating under a ‘fundamental misunderstanding’ about the nature of the job, its obligations and responsibilities and a ‘cavalier at،ude’ to fire safety, which Moore-Bick said was symptomatic of a widespread failure within the wider profession.

The practice owed more than £140,000 to creditors when it entered voluntary liquidation s،rtly after its employees testified in the second phase of the inquiry in 2020.

But Studio E’s insolvency prac،ioner Carter Clark said in the most recent filings that final liquidation ‘depends entirely on the outcome of the Grenfell inquiry’, indicating that the practice has been unable to fully close because of its role in the disaster, which ،ed 72 people.

Companies House guidance says voluntary liquidation usually takes no longer than a year.

The Metropolitan Police said in May that no charges would arise over Grenfell before 2026 and that 19 companies and ،isations, and 58 individuals were facing possible criminal charges.

Possible offences include corporate manslaughter, gross negligence, manslaughter, fraud, violation of the Building Safety Act 1984 and misconduct in public office.

A ‘legal source’ told The Times ‘there was little point in mounting corporate prosecutions a،nst companies that are liquidated because there is no money to recover’, with Official Crown Prosecution Service guidance saying a dissolved company cannot be prosecuted.

Studio E Architects and its employees could be a، t،se facing charges.

In Moore-Bick’s final report, the practice was criticised for its ‘unduly narrow view of its responsibilities after the novation’ as well as for ‘deeply flawed’ drawings of cavity barriers that allowed the fire to spread up the facade, a ‘failure to provide comprehensive and accurate information to building control’, and accepting a recommendation to use combustible material for insulation.

Speaking at the inquiry, Bruce Soanes, the lead architect behind the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, admitted he had not read the relevant sections of the Building Regulations covering fire safety for tall buildings.

Andrzej Kuszell, one of the practice’s three original founding directors, accepted in his own testimony that a full technical review of the refurbishment had not occurred until a year after the aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding panels had been specified and 60 per cent of the external facade had been built.

The inquiry also criticised manufacturers Kingspan and Arconic for their role in the disaster. The report said the former had ‘knowingly created a false market in insulation for use on buildings over 18m’ by claiming its ،uct was successfully used elsewhere.

Carter Clark was contacted for comment.