Supreme Court Building Safety Act: URS v BDW Construction Ruling
The construction industry has been waiting with bated breath for definitive guidance on the Building Safety Act 2022’s practical application. That wait ended on May 21, 2025, when the Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgment in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd, providing crucial clarity on how the legislation operates in real-world scenarios.
This decision doesn’t just resolve a dispute between two parties — it establishes fundamental principles that will govern construction liability for years to come, particularly regarding historic building defects and the responsibility for remedial works.
The Case That Changed Everything
At the heart of this dispute lay a scenario increasingly familiar in post-Grenfell Britain: serious structural defects discovered in high-rise residential buildings years after completion. BDW Trading, the original developer, engaged URS Corporation as structural design consultant for several high-rise residential developments completed between 2007 and 2012.
When post-Grenfell safety investigations in late 2019 revealed potentially dangerous design defects affecting structural integrity, BDW faced a critical decision. Despite no longer having any ownership interest in the buildings, BDW voluntarily undertook comprehensive remedial works to address the safety risks. The cost of these repairs became the subject of intense legal scrutiny.
Four Critical Questions Answered
The Supreme Court’s unanimous dismissal of URS’s appeal addressed four fundamental issues that will influence construction disputes for years to come.
Voluntary Repairs and Liability Scope
URS’s primary argument centered on the “voluntary” nature of BDW’s repair works. They contended that since BDW had no proprietary interest in the buildings when repairs were undertaken, any costs incurred fell outside URS’s duty of care as design consultant.
The Supreme Court firmly rejected this position, establishing that voluntarily incurred losses can indeed be recoverable. More significantly, the Court questioned whether repairs addressing risks of death or injury to residents could genuinely be considered “voluntary” in any meaningful sense.
This ruling sends a clear message: construction professionals cannot escape liability simply because remedial works are undertaken by parties acting responsibly to address safety risks, even without legal compulsion.
Retrospective Legislation and Extended Claims
Section 135 of the Building Safety Act, which came into force on June 28, 2022, retrospectively extended limitation periods for claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 to 30 years. URS argued this extension applied only to direct claims under the Act, not to related negligence or contribution claims.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation proved expansive, ruling that Section 135 covers any action “by virtue of” the Defective Premises Act, regardless of the specific legal mechanism employed. This broad interpretation aligns with the legislation’s underlying purpose: ensuring those responsible for building defects face appropriate accountability.
Developer Rights Under the Defective Premises Act
A crucial question involved whether developers could benefit from protections typically associated with homeowners and leaseholders. URS contended that the Defective Premises Act’s provisions applied exclusively to property owners and occupiers, not to commercial developers.
The Supreme Court demolished this argument, confirming that the Act imposes duties to any person — including developers — to whose order dwellings are constructed. Since URS’s work was performed to BDW’s specifications, a clear duty relationship existed under the legislation.
Importantly, the Court saw no contradiction in BDW simultaneously owing duties to homeowners while being owed duties by URS, recognizing the complex web of relationships in modern construction projects.
Contribution Claims Without Formal Proceedings
The final issue addressed whether contribution claims could succeed without prior judgments or settlements against the claimant. URS argued that BDW couldn’t seek contribution from them without first facing formal legal action from affected homeowners.
The Supreme Court established that “payment in kind” through remedial works constitutes sufficient basis for contribution claims. BDW’s repair work represented compensation for damage that both parties potentially caused, creating grounds for contribution regardless of formal legal proceedings.
Industry-Wide Implications
This decision reverberates far beyond the immediate parties, establishing principles that will reshape how construction professionals approach risk, liability, and remedial obligations.
Expanded Accountability Horizons
The ruling significantly expands the circumstances under which construction professionals may face liability for building defects. The combination of extended limitation periods and broad interpretation of “voluntary” repairs means that decades-old projects remain potential sources of legal exposure.
Professional indemnity insurers will likely reassess risk models and pricing structures to account for this extended liability horizon. Construction professionals must consider how current design and construction decisions might generate liability claims decades into the future.
Encouraging Responsible Remediation
By supporting parties who undertake necessary remedial works, the Supreme Court creates powerful incentives for responsible behavior when building defects emerge. Organizations that act quickly to address safety risks can pursue recovery from those originally responsible, rather than bearing costs alone.
This approach should encourage prompt action when defects are discovered, potentially preventing minor issues from escalating into major safety hazards.
Complex Liability Chains
The Court’s recognition that parties can simultaneously owe and be owed duties reflects modern construction’s intricate relationship networks. This acknowledgment provides clarity for multi-party disputes involving developers, contractors, consultants, and specialists.
Professional advisors must now consider their position within complex liability chains rather than viewing their obligations in isolation. Understanding how duties flow through construction teams becomes essential for effective risk management.
Practical Risk Management Strategies
This judgment demands immediate reassessment of risk management approaches across the construction sector.
Enhanced Documentation Standards
With potential liability horizons extending to 30 years, maintaining comprehensive project documentation becomes crucial. Design rationales, safety considerations, regulatory compliance evidence, and decision-making processes must be preserved far longer than previously contemplated.
Professional teams should establish robust document retention policies that account for extended limitation periods while ensuring key personnel remain accessible for potential future proceedings.
Insurance Coverage Review
Professional indemnity policies require urgent review to ensure adequate coverage for extended liability periods. Standard policy terms may not account for the Building Safety Act’s implications, potentially leaving significant coverage gaps.
Run-off insurance arrangements become particularly important as the potential for claims extends decades beyond project completion. Professional practices must consider how coverage will be maintained as firms evolve, merge, or close.
Proactive Defect Management
The judgment encourages proactive approaches to building defect identification and remediation. Organizations that identify and address defects early may find themselves better positioned to pursue recovery from originally responsible parties.
Regular building condition assessments and systematic defect tracking systems can provide evidence supporting future contribution claims while demonstrating responsible stewardship.
Wider Legislative Context
This decision reinforces the Building Safety Act’s fundamental objective: shifting liability toward those responsible for creating building defects rather than allowing costs to fall on innocent property owners or responsible developers.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation aligns with broader policy objectives around building safety accountability, suggesting that future judicial decisions will likely support the legislation’s protective intent.
Looking Forward
While this judgment resolves key interpretive questions, it also raises new considerations for construction professionals. The extended liability horizon demands fundamental reassessment of how risks are managed, documented, and insured throughout the construction process.
Professional practices must balance current commercial pressures with potential long-term liabilities, ensuring that today’s decisions don’t create tomorrow’s legal exposures. The construction industry’s approach to quality assurance, documentation, and risk management must evolve to reflect these extended accountability periods.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court’s decision represents more than legal clarification — it establishes a new framework for construction accountability that prioritizes building safety and responsible remediation over technical liability defenses.
For construction professionals, the message is clear: robust design standards, comprehensive documentation, and proactive defect management are no longer optional best practices but essential business requirements in an environment where accountability extends decades beyond project completion.
The Building Safety Act’s true impact is only beginning to emerge, but this landmark decision provides the foundation for understanding how the legislation will operate in practice. Those who adapt quickly to this new reality will be best positioned to manage risks while continuing to deliver successful construction projects.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the URS v BDW Supreme Court case about?
The case involved URS Corporation (design consultant) and BDW Trading (developer) disputing liability for remedial works on high-rise buildings with structural defects. BDW voluntarily undertook expensive safety repairs and sought contribution from URS. The Supreme Court ruled that URS remained liable despite the voluntary nature of the repairs.
How does the Building Safety Act extend limitation periods?
Section 135 of the Building Safety Act retrospectively extended limitation periods for Defective Premises Act claims from 6 years to 30 years. This means construction professionals can face liability for building defects discovered decades after project completion, significantly expanding their potential legal exposure.
Can developers claim under the Defective Premises Act?
Yes, the Supreme Court confirmed that developers can benefit from Defective Premises Act protections. The Act imposes duties on anyone providing construction services to developers, creating a clear legal relationship where developers can seek redress from consultants and contractors for defective work.
What are voluntary repairs and why do they matter?
Voluntary repairs are remedial works undertaken without legal compulsion. The Supreme Court ruled that such repairs can still form the basis for contribution claims, particularly when addressing safety risks. This means parties cannot escape liability simply because repairs were done voluntarily by responsible building owners.
How should construction professionals manage extended liability risks?
Construction professionals should enhance documentation standards, review professional indemnity insurance coverage for extended periods, implement proactive defect management systems, and consider their position within complex liability chains. The 30-year liability horizon requires fundamental changes to risk management approaches.
