URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has provided vital clarification on the responsibilities of developers and construction professionals when it comes to building safety under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA).
The background: safety obligations in a post-Grenfell world
Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the BSA was introduced to tighten regulations—particularly for high-rise developments. One key change was extending the timeframe for bringing claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA).
This case involved BDW Trading Ltd (a major developer) and URS Corporation Ltd (their structural engineering consultant). BDW had discovered serious defects in two high-rise developments—both already sold to homeowners—and carried out remedial works before the enactment of the BSA and without any claim having been brought by homeowners. BDW then sought to recover those costs from URS, raising questions about whether it was legally entitled to do so.
The legal questions
The Court considered four central issues:
- Could BDW recover the cost of repairs it had “voluntarily” undertaken?
- Did the BSA extend the time limit for BDW’s claims?
- Was URS liable to BDW under the DPA even though BDW was a developer, not a homeowner?
- Could BDW seek a contribution from URS, even without any direct claim from homeowners?
What the Supreme Court decided
- “Voluntary” repairs may still be recoverable
URS claimed BDW’s actions were voluntary and fell outside their duty of care. The Court disagreed. It ruled that developers can recover the cost of safety-critical repairs even if no formal claim has yet been brought by residents. The key issue is whether the response was reasonable in the circumstances—a fact-specific question to be tested at trial.
- The Building Safety Act applies broadly
The Court confirmed that section 135 of the BSA doesn’t just extend limitation periods for DPA claims. It also affects claims linked to the DPA—such as negligence and contribution claims. This interpretation reinforces the BSA’s aim of improving accountability across the sector.
- Developers are owed a duty under the DPA
URS argued they owed no duty to BDW under the DPA because BDW wasn’t a homeowner. The Court rejected this. It said the duty is owed to homeowners who have acquired an interest in the dwellings and also to whoever commissions the work—layperson or developer alike.
- Contribution claims don’t require prior legal action from homeowners
BDW was entitled to bring a claim for contribution even though no homeowner had brought a formal claim. The Court clarified that such claims arise when both parties are liable to the damage which has been suffered by a homeowner and the party seeking contribution has agreed to make compensation to the homeowner—even through “payment in kind”, like repairs.
What this means for the industry
This decision strengthens the legal footing for developers acting proactively to resolve safety issues. It sends a clear message: if you’ve contributed to building defects, you can be held accountable—regardless of whether formal claims have been brought by homeowners.
It also provides:
- Greater clarity on how long claimants have to bring proceedings.
- Confirmation that developers can seek redress from design professionals and contractors under the DPA.
- Assurance that early, reasonable intervention by developers won’t bar them from recovering costs.
How we can help
At Tees, our construction law specialists and Commercial Dispute Resolution and Litigation team are on hand to help you navigate your obligations under the Building Safety Act and the Defective Premises Act. If you’re a developer, contractor or consultant facing questions about building safety or legacy liabilities, we’re ready to support you. Team Members include: Jason Torrance, Duncan Ho, Jessica Barker, Stefania Cuffaro and Daniel Muranyi
Get in touch for a confidential, no-obligation conversation about how the ruling might affect your projects or responsibilities.
