URS v BDW Supreme Court 2025: Building Safety Act Landmark Ruling [2025] UKSC 21

URS v BDW Case Summary: Quick Reference

The URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 case involved a dispute between URS Corporation (structural design consultant) and BDW Trading (property developer) over liability for remedial works on high-rise residential developments with structural defects discovered years after completion. The case reached the Supreme Court after lower courts consistently ruled in favor of BDW's right to recover costs for voluntary safety repairs undertaken on buildings it no longer owned, with the Building Safety Act 2022's retrospective limitation period extension adding critical complexity to already intricate construction liability questions.

Timeline of the URS v BDW Case

• 2007-2012: Capital East and Freemens Meadow developments completed by BDW with URS structural design services
• Late 2019: Post-Grenfell safety investigations reveal serious structural defects affecting building integrity
• 2020-2021: BDW voluntarily undertakes comprehensive remedial works despite no longer owning the properties
• 6 March 2020: BDW files negligence claim against URS (pre-Building Safety Act, initially time-barred under DPA)
• 28 April 2022: Building Safety Act 2022 receives Royal Assent
• 28 June 2022: Section 135 BSA comes into force, extending limitation periods retrospectively to 30 years
• October 2022: BDW successfully amends claim to include DPA and Contribution Act claims (Adrian Williamson KC judgment)
• 3 July 2023: Court of Appeal dismisses URS appeals (Coulson LJ leading judgment)
• 21 May 2025: Supreme Court unanimously dismisses URS appeal on all four grounds with 88-page judgment

Four Grounds of Appeal: Detailed Analysis

The Supreme Court's examination of URS Corporation's four grounds of appeal provides comprehensive guidance on critical construction law questions that will influence disputes for decades to come. Each ground received detailed consideration, with Lord Hamblen and Lord Burrows delivering the leading joint judgment on Grounds 1-3, while Lord Leggatt provided the lead judgment on Ground 4, with all seven justices reaching unanimous conclusions rejecting URS's arguments and affirming developer rights to recover costs for responsible remediation efforts.

Ground 1: Voluntary Repairs and the "Voluntariness Principle"

URS's primary argument centered on characterizing BDW's repair works as "voluntary" because BDW had no proprietary interest in the buildings when repairs were undertaken and faced no enforceable legal obligation to perform the works. URS contended that voluntarily incurred losses fall outside a consultant's duty of care scope and/or are too remote for recovery under standard negligence principles, attempting to establish a "voluntariness principle" that would limit professional liability to scenarios involving legal compulsion or property ownership requirements.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected this position, establishing that voluntarily incurred losses can indeed be recoverable when they fall within the scope of an assumption of responsibility relationship. More significantly, the Court questioned whether repairs addressing risks of death or serious injury to residents could genuinely be considered "voluntary" in any meaningful sense, recognizing the moral and practical imperatives driving responsible developers to address safety risks regardless of technical legal obligations or current property ownership status.

Ground 2: Retrospective Application of Section 135 Building Safety Act

Section 135 of the Building Safety Act 2022, which came into force on June 28, 2022, retrospectively extended limitation periods for claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 from six years to 30 years for work completed before that date. URS argued this extension applied narrowly to direct claims brought specifically under section 1 DPA, not to related negligence claims, contribution claims under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, or other connected legal actions that merely reference or depend upon DPA time bars.

The Supreme Court's interpretation proved expansively protective of claimants, ruling that Section 135 covers any action "by virtue of" the Defective Premises Act, regardless of the specific legal mechanism or cause of action employed. This broad interpretation aligns with the Building Safety Act's underlying legislative purpose: ensuring those responsible for building defects face appropriate accountability regardless of when defects are discovered, preventing technical limitation arguments from defeating meritorious claims against negligent construction professionals.

Building Safety Act 30-Year Liability Extension Explained

The Building Safety Act 2022's extension of limitation periods from six years to 30 years for claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 represents one of the most significant changes to construction professional liability in modern UK legal history. This retrospective extension, covering work completed before June 28, 2022, creates potential exposure for projects dating back to 1992, fundamentally altering the risk landscape for developers, design consultants, main contractors, and their professional indemnity insurers who must now account for three decades of potential liability rather than the traditional six-year window.

Understanding Section 135 of the Building Safety Act

Section 135 operates retrospectively, meaning that claims which were previously time-barred under the old six-year limitation period can be revived if they fall within the new 30-year period. The Supreme Court confirmed that this extended period applies not only to direct claims under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act but also to related negligence claims, contribution claims under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, and any other legal action connected to DPA duties, creating comprehensive liability exposure across multiple potential causes of action.

• Work Completed Before June 28, 2022: 30-year limitation period applies retrospectively from completion date (projects back to 1992 now exposed)
• Work Completed After June 28, 2022: 15-year limitation period applies prospectively from completion date
• Revival of Time-Barred Claims: Claims that expired during 12 months before June 28, 2022 can be brought within extended period
• Scope of Application: Covers direct DPA claims, negligence claims, contribution claims, and any action "by virtue of" DPA
• Exception: Claims finally determined or settled before June 28, 2022 cannot be reopened

Who's Affected by the 30-Year Limitation Period

The extended limitation period creates profound implications across the construction industry, affecting parties involved in residential dwelling design, construction, conversion, or enlargement projects completed as far back as 1992. Design consultants including architects, structural engineers, and specialist designers face particularly acute exposure given that design defects often remain undiscovered for many years after construction completion, with problems only manifesting when buildings age or undergo post-Grenfell safety investigations revealing latent structural or fire safety issues.

Main contractors, specialist subcontractors, and materials suppliers also face extended liability periods, though the URS v BDW judgment clarifies that developers who act responsibly to address safety risks can pursue contribution claims throughout the supply chain to recover remediation costs. Professional indemnity insurers must now provide coverage extending 30 years beyond project completion for historic work, requiring fundamental reassessment of risk models, premium structures, and policy terms to account for this dramatically expanded exposure window that quintuples the traditional six-year liability period.

Design Defect Liability for Developers and Consultants

The URS v BDW judgment provides critical clarity on design defect liability affecting both developers who commission construction work and the consultants they engage to provide professional services. The case establishes that design consultants owe clear duties not only to ultimate property owners and occupiers but also to the developers who engage their services, creating a comprehensive duty framework where contractual relationships generate both contractual and statutory obligations under the Defective Premises Act 1972 alongside common law negligence duties.

Professional Negligence Standards in Construction Design

Construction design professionals must exercise reasonable skill and care appropriate to their profession when providing services related to residential dwellings. The Supreme Court confirmed that URS assumed responsibility to BDW under professional service contracts and breached the resulting duty of care by providing defective structural designs that created safety risks requiring expensive remediation years after project completion, establishing clear liability despite the passage of time and BDW's disposal of the affected properties before defects were discovered.

Design defect liability extends beyond obvious structural failures to encompass fire safety issues, building envelope defects, inadequate waterproofing, thermal bridging problems, and other latent defects that may not manifest for years after completion. The post-Grenfell regulatory environment has heightened scrutiny of historic design decisions, with many developers conducting retrospective safety investigations that reveal defects in projects previously considered satisfactory, creating waves of potential claims against design professionals who worked on buildings completed years or decades ago.

Common Design Defects Leading to Liability Claims

• Structural Inadequacies: Undersized beams, insufficient reinforcement, inadequate load-bearing capacity affecting building safety
• Fire Safety Design Failures: Inadequate compartmentation, deficient escape routes, non-compliant fire suppression systems
• External Wall System Defects: Combustible materials, inadequate cavity barriers, non-compliant cladding specifications
• Building Envelope Failures: Inadequate waterproofing, thermal bridging, condensation risk, weatherproofing deficiencies
• Services Design Errors: Undersized drainage, inadequate ventilation, non-compliant electrical/mechanical systems
• Accessibility Compliance Failures: Non-compliant disabled access, inadequate emergency egress for mobility-impaired residents

Developer Rights to Pursue Design Consultants

Ground 3 of the URS appeal specifically addressed whether developers could benefit from Defective Premises Act protections, with URS contending the Act's provisions applied exclusively to property owners and occupiers rather than commercial developers. The Supreme Court demolished this argument, confirming that section 1(1)(a) DPA imposes duties to "any person" — explicitly including developers — to whose order dwellings are constructed, establishing clear statutory protection for developers alongside their contractual remedies against negligent consultants and contractors.

Importantly, the Court recognized no contradiction in developers simultaneously owing duties to homeowners while being owed duties by consultants and contractors, acknowledging the complex web of relationships characterizing modern construction projects. This recognition validates contribution claim strategies where developers who discharge remediation obligations to protect residents can immediately pursue recovery throughout the supply chain, identifying all parties whose negligence contributed to the defects requiring repair work and allocating liability according to relative culpability and contractual risk allocation.

Who's Affected: Stakeholder Impact Analysis

The Supreme Court's URS Corporation v BDW Trading decision reverberates far beyond the immediate parties, establishing principles reshaping risk management, insurance, and commercial litigation strategies across the construction sector. Understanding stakeholder-specific implications proves essential for construction professionals, developers, insurers, and legal advisors navigating the post-judgment landscape where accountability extends decades beyond project completion and traditional liability defenses face significant judicial skepticism.

Practical Risk Management Strategies

The Supreme Court judgment demands immediate reassessment of risk management approaches across the construction sector, with particular emphasis on extended documentation retention, comprehensive insurance coverage review, and proactive defect management systems addressing the 30-year liability horizon now affecting all construction professionals involved with residential dwelling projects. Organizations that adapt quickly to this new reality will be best positioned to manage risks while continuing to deliver successful construction projects in an environment where accountability extends decades beyond traditional completion and handover milestones.

Enhanced Documentation Standards and Retention Policies

With potential liability horizons extending to 30 years, maintaining comprehensive project documentation becomes crucial for defending against future claims and pursuing contribution recovery from supply chain partners. Design rationales, safety considerations, regulatory compliance evidence, decision-making processes, meeting minutes, correspondence with clients and contractors, and quality assurance records must be preserved far longer than previously contemplated under six-year limitation regimes, requiring substantial investment in digital document management systems and long-term archive facilities.

• Design Documentation: Preserve calculations, specifications, drawings, design development records, and approval documentation for 30 years minimum
• Construction Records: Maintain site diaries, inspection reports, material certificates, testing results, and as-built documentation indefinitely
• Correspondence Archives: Retain emails, letters, meeting minutes, and all client/contractor communications relating to design decisions and safety considerations
• Quality Assurance Evidence: Keep comprehensive records demonstrating compliance with professional standards, building regulations, and safety requirements
• Personnel Accessibility: Maintain contact details for key personnel who may be needed for witness testimony decades after project completion
• Digital Systems: Implement secure cloud-based document management ensuring long-term accessibility and protection against data loss or corruption

Professional Indemnity Insurance Review and Run-Off Coverage

Professional indemnity policies require urgent review to ensure adequate coverage for extended liability periods, with particular attention to run-off insurance arrangements that become essential as the potential for claims extends decades beyond project completion. Standard policy terms may not account for the Building Safety Act's implications, potentially leaving significant coverage gaps that expose professionals to uninsured liability when claims arise 20-30 years after work completion, long after active practice insurance policies have expired or firms have closed operations.

Proactive Defect Management and Portfolio Risk Assessment

The judgment encourages proactive approaches to building defect identification and remediation, with organizations that identify and address defects early finding themselves better positioned to pursue recovery from originally responsible parties while demonstrating responsible stewardship to regulators, insurers, and stakeholders. Regular building condition assessments, systematic defect tracking systems, and portfolio-wide risk reviews enable construction professionals to identify potential liability exposures before they escalate into formal claims, allowing strategic remediation planning and early notification to insurers triggering policy coverage before limitation periods expire.

When to Seek Building Safety Act Legal Advice

The complexity of Building Safety Act 2022 obligations, combined with the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of liability principles in URS v BDW, creates scenarios where specialist legal advice proves essential for protecting interests and achieving optimal outcomes. Construction professionals, developers, and building owners should consult experienced construction lawyers when facing defect notifications, contemplating remediation strategies, receiving contribution demands, or navigating the intricate regulatory and liability landscape created by post-Grenfell building safety reforms.

Critical Scenarios Requiring Legal Guidance

• Defect Discovery in Historic Projects: When safety investigations reveal defects in buildings completed years ago, requiring assessment of liability exposure and strategic response
• Remediation Cost Recovery: Developers undertaking voluntary repairs needing guidance on pursuing contribution claims throughout supply chain following URS v BDW precedent
• Contribution Claim Defense: Construction professionals receiving demands to contribute to remediation costs requiring strategic defense and liability assessment
• Insurance Coverage Disputes: When professional indemnity insurers deny coverage or dispute liability for Building Safety Act related claims
• Multi-Party Liability Allocation: Complex disputes involving developers, contractors, consultants, and building control requiring sophisticated contribution claim strategies
• Regulatory Compliance Queries: Navigating Building Safety Regulator requirements, building control approvals, and remediation planning obligations
• Limitation Period Questions: Assessing whether claims fall within extended 30-year periods or can be defended on limitation grounds
• Settlement Negotiations: Evaluating settlement proposals against litigation risks in light of URS v BDW principles and Building Safety Act exposure