On the basis of independent legal advice, the Board considers the risks and rewards of pursuing legal claims against contractors and / or consultants and / or insurers where the installation or materials used are considered not to have been compliant with Building Regulations or contractual specifications. This decision takes account of the ruling in the case of Martlet Homes Limited v Mulalley & Co. Limited, in which the contractor was found to be liable for the full cost of replacing the external wall installation. This was because it had not, as specified in the contract, conformed with guidance from the Building Research Establishment, which advised that cladding should not be used on high-rise buildings unless it had specifically been tested in accordance with BS8414-1. Where ACM cladding is being replaced, a claim has been submitted to the government for any costs not covered by these actions.