We acted for the council in this professional liability case. The claim concerned failed remedial work to the cladding of a house. The remedial cladding company and its director were found by the Tribunal to be 73% responsible for the claimants’ loss. That ruling (amongst others) was appealed to the High Court. The Tribunal had been willing to accept that targeted repairs were appropriate but the director of the cladding company refused to issue a producer statement for the targeted repair unless his lesser scope of remedial works were accepted. As the council would not accept the targeted repair without a producer statement the Tribunal awarded the cost of a full reclad. The Court accepted our argument that post loss conduct was relevant when assessing the relative blameworthiness of the cladding company and its director. Their contribution was pushed from 60% to 73% because the refusal to issue the producer statement increased the cost of the remedial work significantly. The council’s contribution remained at 10%, which is half its typical apportionment.