Predict your next investment

Corporate Venture
martlet-angel.com

See what CB Insights has to offer

Investments

1

About Martlet

The firm is the investment arm of the Marshall of Cambridge group that provides small sums of capital for early-stage technology startups that are located in the UK, with a preference towards Cambridge and East Anglia. It typically co-invests with angels and small seed funds, and has the capacity to follow in subsequent investment rounds. The size of its investments per transaction range from GBP 10,000 to 100,000.

Martlet Headquarter Location

The Airport, Newmarket Road

England, CB5 8RX,

United Kingdom

44 122 337 3757

Predict your next investment

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on venture capital, startups, patents , partnerships and news mentions to help you see tomorrow's opportunities, today.

Latest Martlet News

Fire safety disputes: what does the Mulalley ruling tell us?

Jul 27, 2022

Olivia Jenkins Trowers & Hamlins 27.07.22 Olivia Jenkins explains how the court reached its judgement in the Martlet v Mulalley fire safety dispute – and how that might influence future cases Harbour Tower in Gosport was one of the buildings to undergo cladding remediation works (Image: Google Streetview) The industry has eagerly awaited court guidance on liability for the cost of remediating unsafe external wall construction and waking watch costs for over half a decade. It finally arrived on 14 July 2022 when the court handed down judgment in Martlet Homes Limited v Mulalley and Co Limited . The dispute Working under an amended JCT standard form building contract, Mulalley was responsible for the design and construction of the external wall system of five high-rise residential towers owned by Martlet, a social housing provider and subsidiary of Hyde Group. All five tower blocks were over 18m in height but only four were the subject of these proceedings. Post-Grenfell, Martlet discovered that the design and installation of the external walls were not compliant with applicable Building Regulations and contended that this breached the parties’ contract. Contractually, Mulalley had the design liability of an architect. It needed to ensure the design and construction of its works complied with applicable Building Regulations and related materials, including codes of practice, BSI standards, and BBA certificates. The specified system The external wall system specified in this case was different to Grenfell in many respects. Here, it consisted of an inner layer of combustible expanded polystyrene insulation boards fixed to the existing external wall with adhesive and supplementary mechanical stainless steel fixings, underneath two coats of combustible render, which had a reinforcing glass fibre mesh layer sandwiched between them. Horizontal mineral wool fire barriers were specified for installation at each floor level above the third storey. Before court proceedings commenced, an adjudication determined the parties’ dispute on a temporarily binding basis in Mulalley’s favour. The court overturned that decision when ‘finally’ determining the parties’ dispute in these proceedings. Martlet sought around £8m from Mulalley to cover the cost of replacing the external wall system and implementing a ‘waking watch’ service, where fire marshals patrolled its tower blocks until the combustible cladding was removed, and later during completion of remedial works. The court considered technical evidence supplied by both parties from experts in the fields of architecture, fire safety and quantity surveying, as well as the provisions of the entire regulatory framework relevant to the works. This included: Building Regulations (2000, in particular, regulations 4 and 7). Approved Document B (2002). BRE 135 performance criteria (BRE 135 1998 and, more pertinently, BRE 135 2003). The judgment The court decided that the system specified and installed was not compliant with applicable Building Regulations because: the installed fire barriers left voids for fire to pass through; the installed insulation boards were not consistently fixed with adhesive; the installed stainless steel fixings were too short and created a medium for fire spread; and no BS 8414-1 test was conducted on the specified system, which it needed to demonstrate compliance. The court accepted that it might be possible to show that a different system specified for use in a high-rise building did not need a BS 8414-1 test. But, here, the court decided that such a test was necessary because:   the relevant BBA certificate was not enough to demonstrate compliance; the applicable Approved Document gave no guidance regarding the type of system; Mulalley specified and, therefore, could not be followed as a means for demonstrating compliance; and Mulalley could not prove that the specified system ‘would have’ passed BS 8414-1 testing, or that it did not create a medium for further fire risk when compared to other tested systems which bore similarities. The court’s award Mulalley was ordered to pay almost all the costs of the waking watch and replacement external wall system. If Martlet had only succeeded in demonstrating that the system installed did not comply with Building Regulations (but the system designed did), the court confirmed that it would only have awarded the cost of repairing the installed works that were non-compliant because such a scheme was considered a viable alternative by experts before Martlet completed remedial works. It would still have allowed Martlet to recover the cost of a waking watch, albeit for a reduced timeframe (as remedial works would have taken less time). The court has emphasised that this case turned on its own facts, and – at the time of writing – it is still too early to say whether it will be appealed. This should be borne in mind when relying upon any guidance provided by the court in this judgment. It will, however, be met with widespread interest from any party currently involved in a dispute relating to fire safety issues connected with the external walls of high-rise buildings, as the positions adopted by the parties in this case broadly reflect the positions that are typically adopted in such disputes. While no two disputes are ever truly identical, the court has now provided welcome guidance as to how it might view such arguments in comparable fire safety disputes. Olivia is an associate and solicitor in the Dispute Resolution and Litigation team at Trowers & Hamlins .

Martlet Investments

1 Investments

Martlet has made 1 investments. Their latest investment was in Porotech as part of their Seed VC - II on June 6, 2021.

CBI Logo

Martlet Investments Activity

investments chart

Date

Round

Company

Amount

New?

Co-Investors

Sources

6/24/2021

Seed VC - II

Porotech

$4.18M

Yes

4

Date

6/24/2021

Round

Seed VC - II

Company

Porotech

Amount

$4.18M

New?

Yes

Co-Investors

Sources

4

Discover the right solution for your team

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on vendors, products, partnerships, and patents to help your team find their next technology solution.

Request a demo

CBI websites generally use certain cookies to enable better interactions with our sites and services. Use of these cookies, which may be stored on your device, permits us to improve and customize your experience. You can read more about your cookie choices at our privacy policy here. By continuing to use this site you are consenting to these choices.