In this article, the team at specialist property solicitors JB Leitch look at both legislative progress and notable case law in the sphere of building safety.
A Notable Decision in the Supreme Court
As Flat Living readers may be aware, the Supreme Court decision in the long running URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 case, was handed down recently – the first case in which the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”) has been considered by the Supreme Court.
Placing this significant case in context, the Government encouraged developers to carry out any necessary remedial work for safety defects discovered and this was reinforced by the imposition of legal liabilities on developers by the BSA. The dispute between the Respondent BDW Trading Ltd, a major property developer and the appellant, URS Corporation Ltd, a provider of consultant engineering services, concerned design defects in two sets of multiple high-rise residential building developments for which BDW had been the developer and where structural designs had been provided by URS.
BDW conducted remedial works in 2020 – 2021, and in March 2020 BDW brought a claim against URS in the tort of negligence (a civil wrong) to recover the costs of the remedial works.
In June 2022, section 135 of the BSA came into force which retrospectively extends the limitation period for accrued claims under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (“s.1 DPA”) from 6 to 30 years.
BDW successfully applied to amend its claim so as to bring new claims against URS under s.1 DPA and under the Civil Liability Act. The Court of Appeal dismissed URS’s consequential appeals, but the Supreme Court granted URS permission to appeal.
The decision confirms that:
- Section 135 (and various other aspects) of the Building Safety Act 2022 applies retrospectively, extending limitation periods for claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA) to 30 years. The scope of this includes claims in negligence and claims in contribution.
- The Court concluded that no “voluntariness principle” applied, and that essentially repairs were not incurred on a ‘voluntary’ basis and were necessary to secure the safety of the residents.
- The decision also confirms that developers can both owe and be owed a duty under section 1 of the DPA.
- Contribution claims are available to a party who has voluntarily assumed a liability for repairs, regardless of whether there is a third-party claim or where they no longer own the property.
The decision provides precedents that will have significant impact on other major decisions in future. The Supreme Court’s decision, by which all other Courts will be bound, can be read in full here: https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2023_0110_judgment_225bb619df.pdf
Delay in the Building Safety Levy and Remediation of Unsafe Cladding
The Government’s Remediation Acceleration Plan, published in December 2024, outlines steps to expedite building safety remediation, including a new Building Safety Levy (BSL) to help fund cladding removal.
The Government has outlined two key objectives to be achieved by the end of 2029 in its newly published Remediation Acceleration Plan. First, all high-rise buildings (18m+) with unsafe cladding will be remediated. Second, every building 11m+ with unsafe cladding will either be remediated or have a confirmed remediation completion date. Landlords who fail to meet these objectives will face severe penalties, although the exact nature of these penalties has yet to be specified.
However, the government has recently published its response to the technical consultation on the Building Safety Levy (BSL), confirming that implementation will be delayed until autumn 2026, with no firm date yet set. This delay raises uncertainty regarding both the timeline for key safety measures and the funding needed to address unsafe cladding, potentially slowing progress on essential remediation works.
The delay to the Building Safety Levy leaves a funding gap that stakeholders will need to navigate carefully. In the interim, practitioners should consider potential alternative funding routes, such as Remediation Orders or Remediation Contribution Orders, and manage expectations around delivery timescales.
In Perspective
Three years on from the enactment of the Building Safety Act 2022, the legal landscape remains in flux. While the legislation has brought welcome focus to accountability, transparency, and remediation funding, key aspects of its implementation, particularly around service charge recoverability, leaseholder protections, and retrospective effect continue to be tested in the courts. The outcome of appeals (such as the much-discussed Hippersley Point and Triathlon Homes cases) will be pivotal in determining the scope of the Act’s protections.
Subsequently, the evolving framework for the Building Safety Levy, the operation of the golden thread, and the ongoing tension between the BSA and legacy landlord and tenant law highlight a system still very much taking shape.
If you would like to learn more about the case or discuss how we can help you, please contact us: [email protected]
