In a case of major industry significance, the Supreme Court recently confirmed the scope of the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Defective Premises Act 1972, and how each interacts with the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. The Legal team at specialist property solicitors JB Leitch provide a useful analysis…
The background…
URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] concerned two high-rise buildings which were designed by URS Corporation Ltd (“URS”) for the developer BDW Trading Ltd (“BDW”). Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, BDW undertook a review of its estate which identified structural design defects within the subject properties that presented a health and safety risk.
BDW undertook remedial works on the two developments, but at this time BDW held no proprietary interest in the properties, nor had any claims been brought against BDW to instigate the works. BDW sought to recover the costs of the works from URS under a negligence claim.
Initially, the Technology and Construction Court found that the costs of the remedial works were recoverable by BDW from URS on the basis that BDW held a proprietary interest at the time construction was completed.
The Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”) then came into force, extending the limitation period for claims made under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (“DPA”) from 6 to 30 years. BDW then amended its claim to include new claims against URS made under the DPA’s duty of care provisions to build dwellings that are fit for habitation on completion).
The Court of Appeal dismissed URS’ appeals, and the case proceeded to the Supreme Court.
The decision…
The Supreme Court dismissed URS’ appeal on all 4 grounds, concluding that the consultant owed a duty of care to the developer under the DPA.
Taking each ground in turn:
- Had BDW suffered actionable and recoverable damage, or was the claim outside the duty of care, given that BDW had voluntarily incurred the costs of the remedial works?
URS accepted that it was responsible for the delivery of professional services to BDW under its contracts, and that a duty of care had been breached as a result of designs that were shown to be defective.
URS argued that, as BDW had carried out the remedial works voluntarily, BDW was not entitled to receive compensation as the loss was too remote, and fell outside the scope of the duty owed by URS.
This argument was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Whilst a voluntary act undertaken by a claimant may be relevant to causation and mitigation, this will turn on the facts of the case to be considered at trial. In this case, the court found that BDW’s acts had not been voluntary and losses were not too remote. Without remedial works, there was a continued risk of injury or death, and BDW was legally liable to homeowners under the DPA. BDW would also suffer reputational damage without action being taken.
- Does the limitation period contained in the BSA apply?
The extended 30-year limitation period introduced by the BSA was to be applied retrospectively, save in specific circumstances. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the BSA’s extended limitation period applied to claims made under the DPA, and to other related claims such as the claims in negligence brought in this case, dismissing URS’ argument.
The BSA was intended to catch and hold to account those parties responsible for building safety defects over an extended period of up to 30 years. A developer facing claims from property owners must be able to pursue claims against those with responsibility, such as designers or consultants, otherwise the provisions of the BSA are undermined.
- Did URS owe a duty under the DPA to BDW and, if so, were BDW’s losses recoverable if there had been a breach of that duty?
The Supreme Court found that BDW was owed a duty by URS under the DPA. In its judgment, the court stated that it was possible for a party such as a developer, who ‘orders’ a dwelling’s construction, to owe a duty and to be owed a duty, for example to owe a duty to homeowners and to be owed a duty by consultants.
The court favoured a wide interpretation of the DPA which focused on the primary purpose of ensuring that homes are constructed properly.
- Can BDW bring a claim against URS under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (“CLCA”) if no claim has been brought against BDW by any third party?
Under the CLCA, those who are liable for damage suffered by one party are able to recover a suitable contribution from others who may be liable for the same damage.
In this case, BDW sought a contribution from URS for a stated joint liability to homeowners. The Supreme Court dismissed arguments from both parties, directing that the right to a contribution applies when damage has been suffered by the homeowners, that both BDW and URS are liable for that damage, and when BDW has paid, or been ordered to pay, compensation to the homeowners for the damage. BDW had paid compensation by undertaking remedial works, and was therefore in a position to claim a contribution from URS.
This important decision determines how the courts will approach the interaction between the BSA and the DPA, favouring an approach that those liable for damage in a building safety context, as well as their insurers, should be held to account, allocating risk accordingly.
Where a liability exists and a duty is owed by consultants or contractors, developers may pursue contributions for a period of up to 30 years following construction. The industry can expect to see further claims brought following this decision by developers against those in their supply chains. We shall continue to keep readers posted.
