The Supreme Court Hands Down a Notable First Decision on the Building Safety Act 2022

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decision in the long running URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 case, was handed down - 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 yesterday 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 – not least and perhaps most notably, the Hippersley Point and Triathlon cases. Legal Director Phil Parkinson will shortly publish a full analysis of the case and its implications.

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