Lawsuits arising from the Grenfell Tower fire have been fought in courts on both sides of the Atlantic, and the largest of them have now settled. In April 2023, almost 900 bereaved family members, survivors, and local residents reached a global settlement worth approximately £150 million with the building’s owner, its manager, cladding maker Arconic, and the London Fire Commissioner, among others. A separate £20 million settlement followed in February 2024 for 114 firefighters. In the United States, Arconic’s shareholders settled a related securities class action for $74 million. Other cases, including the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s own claim against the manufacturer of the fridge-freezer that started the fire, remain live, and criminal charging decisions are expected before the tenth anniversary of the disaster in June 2027.
Who Was Sued and Why
The 14 June 2017 fire killed 72 people in a 24-storey social housing block in North Kensington. It began in a fourth-floor flat when a Hotpoint-brand fridge-freezer made by Whirlpool malfunctioned, but the reason it spread so fast up the building was the cladding system installed during an £11 million refurbishment completed in 2016. The exterior was wrapped in Reynobond PE aluminium composite panels made by Arconic, with insulation products from Celotex and Kingspan behind them.
More than 1,100 people, including bereaved families, survivors, and nearby residents, filed civil claims in the English High Court. The defendants were, in various combinations:
- The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), which owned the tower
- The Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), which managed it
- Arconic, the cladding manufacturer
- Celotex, an insulation manufacturer
- Rydon, the lead refurbishment contractor
- The London Fire Commissioner
RBKC initially refused to admit liability. After five years of litigation the council conceded in 2022 that it had breached its duty of care to residents, though it continued to dispute whether its failings caused the fire to spread and contested claims brought under human rights and harassment law. The High Court entered judgment confirming liability for a group of nine lead claimants, and the wider group of cases moved toward settlement.
The £150 Million Global Settlement
In April 2023, lawyers announced what they called a “global settlement” worth approximately £150 million covering almost 900 claimants. The deal involved RBKC, the KCTMO, Arconic, the London Fire Commissioner, and other defendants. Individual payments were set to be distributed according to each claimant’s specific circumstances, and Arconic also agreed to contribute to a restorative justice project for the affected community.
Lawyers described the settlement as “full and final” for the large majority of claims. It did not cover every victim, and it was entirely separate from the public inquiry and from any future criminal proceedings.
The Firefighters’ £20 Million Settlement
A separate group of 114 firefighters who responded to the blaze reached a £20 million out-of-court settlement in February 2024. Individual payouts ranged from £10,000 to £1.1 million, reflecting injuries that included lasting psychological trauma so severe some firefighters could not return to work. The defendants in this action were Arconic, Celotex, Rydon, RBKC, the KCTMO, and the London Fire Commissioner. The Fire Brigades Union and Thompsons Solicitors represented the claimants.
How the Settlement Money Is Being Distributed
Part of the global settlement funded a £42 million Future Grenfell Support programme, approved by Kensington and Chelsea council to run until 2028. The average payout was reported at roughly £166,000 per eligible person, with recipients able to choose a lump sum or annual payments between £1,500 and £8,000.
Of the £42 million, £10 million was earmarked for services such as gym memberships, respite breaks, and advocacy support for residents who lived within 500 metres of the tower. Another £14 million went to education and training. RBKC contributed £12 million through borrowing, with the remainder coming from government funding and other defendants.
RBKC’s Claim Against the Fridge Manufacturer
RBKC filed its own High Court lawsuit against Beko Europe, formerly Whirlpool, as part of a broader legal action seeking more than £358 million from companies involved in the disaster. The council accused the fridge manufacturer of safety test failings. Whirlpool has said it is “vigorously defending” the proceedings.
The US Case Against Arconic and Whirlpool
In June 2019, roughly 245 survivors and bereaved families filed a product-liability and wrongful-death lawsuit in Philadelphia state court against Arconic (headquartered in Pennsylvania), Celotex, its parent company Saint-Gobain, and Whirlpool. The case, Behrens et al. v. Arconic Inc. et al., was removed to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs argued that American courts should hear the claims because key design decisions about the cladding were made in the United States, and because Pennsylvania’s liability laws were more favourable to plaintiffs.
In September 2020, Judge Michael Baylson dismissed the case on the grounds that the United Kingdom was the more appropriate forum. He noted that the vast majority of evidence and witnesses were in Britain and that the UK had the stronger interest in adjudicating a disaster involving its own citizens. The dismissal came with a condition: Arconic and Whirlpool had to agree not to seek dismissal in the UK on statute-of-limitations grounds. The Third Circuit later upheld the ruling, sending the litigation to British courts. Saint-Gobain had already been dropped from the US case earlier in 2020.
The Arconic Shareholder Securities Settlement
Separately from the victims’ claims, Arconic’s own shareholders sued the company in federal court. In Howard v. Arconic Inc., et al., investors alleged that Arconic violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the safety and regulatory compliance of Reynobond PE in registration statements and prospectuses, artificially inflating the company’s stock price. When the Grenfell fire revealed the panels’ dangers, the share price fell and investors lost money.
The case settled for $74 million, with final court approval granted by the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on 9 August 2023. Arconic denied all allegations of wrongdoing. As of March 2026, residual distribution checks had been mailed to eligible claimants.
What the Public Inquiry Found About the Companies Being Sued
The findings of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, chaired by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick, form part of the factual backdrop against which the civil claims were resolved. Its Phase 2 report, published on 4 September 2024, found “systematic dishonesty” by Arconic, Kingspan, and Celotex, concluding that all three engaged in “deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market.”
Arconic’s Reynobond PE panels were identified as the “primary cause” of the fire’s rapid spread. The inquiry found the company had repeatedly tested the panels in their cassette form (the configuration used at Grenfell) and they consistently received the second-worst fire rating, results Arconic never shared with the British Board of Agrément, which certified the product. Arconic’s own brochures stated Reynobond PE should only be used on buildings up to 10 metres tall. Grenfell Tower stood over 60 metres. Arconic denied concealing information or misleading anyone.
Kingspan’s Kooltherm K15 insulation was marketed on the basis of a single 2005 fire test conducted on an older version of the product; when the reformulated product was tested in 2007, it became what the inquiry described as a “raging inferno” within 17 minutes. Kingspan acknowledged “unacceptable historical failings” but noted the inquiry did not find its product was the direct cause of the fire.
Celotex rigged a May 2014 fire test for its RS5000 insulation by including fire-resistant magnesium oxide boards in the test setup without declaring them. A former product manager told the inquiry the misrepresentations were “entirely deliberate.” Celotex admitted to “unacceptable conduct” in certification and marketing but maintained that independent post-fire testing showed its marketed system met safety criteria.
The inquiry also concluded that decades of government-encouraged deregulation had let the construction industry effectively “mark its own homework,” that RBKC and the KCTMO failed to listen to residents’ longstanding safety concerns, and that the London Fire Brigade was unprepared for a fire of this scale.
Debarment Investigations
In February 2025, the Cabinet Office opened non-criminal debarment investigations under the Procurement Act 2023 against seven companies involved in the refurbishment: Arconic, Kingspan, Saint-Gobain, Exova, Rydon, Studio E, and Harley Facades. The investigations were intended to determine whether the firms had engaged in professional misconduct warranting a ban from government contracts. In July 2025, the Cabinet Office paused all seven at the request of the Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police, who argued the proceedings could prejudice the ongoing criminal inquiry. No company has been barred from government contracts.
Criminal Charges Are Still to Come
Criminal prosecutions are a separate track from the civil lawsuits and no charges have yet been filed, but they are the piece of the legal aftermath most people are still waiting on. The Metropolitan Police investigation, launched alongside the public inquiry in June 2017, has grown into one of the largest and most complex criminal inquiries in British history. As of May 2026, investigators had examined the roles of 15,000 individuals and 700 organisations, ultimately identifying 57 people and 20 organisations as suspects. More than 50 suspects had been interviewed under caution for a combined total exceeding 300 hours.
Potential charges under consideration include corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, misconduct in public office, fraud, and health and safety offences. The Met is submitting its charging files to the CPS in batches; as of May 2026, 15 of 20 files had been delivered, with the remainder expected by September 2026. The CPS has said it aims to make independent charging decisions before the tenth anniversary of the fire in June 2027.