The UK Supreme Court's landmark judgment in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 has set a definitive legal precedent for developers, consultants, and contractors navigating the complexities of building defects, historical liability, and the impact of the Building Safety Act 2022 ("BSA").In a case that has reverberated across the construction industry, the Court clarified four critical legal issues that determine who pays for the rectification of defective buildings -particularly in the post-Grenfell regulatory landscape.
The Background: Safety First, Ownership Later
BDW Trading Ltd ("BDW"),known for its Barratt and David Wilson brands, developed two high-rise residential projects between 2005 and 2012 with structural designs provided by URS Corporation Ltd ("URS"). Post-Grenfell investigations in2019 revealed serious structural defects. Despite no longer owning the buildings and having no third-party claims against it at the time, BDW voluntarily undertook extensive remedial works to make the buildings safe. It subsequently sought to recover those costs from URS, initiating a chain of legal proceedings that would culminate in the Supreme Court.
The Four Core Legal Issues Decided
Are "Voluntary" Repairs Recoverable in Negligence?
URS argued that BDW’s losses were too remote, claiming that BDW had no legal obligation to carry out the repairs, and therefore any cost was voluntarily incurred and outside URS’s duty of care.
The Supreme Court categorically rejected this argument. It held that there is no rule of law that bars the recovery of voluntarily incurred repair costs, especially where such costs are a foreseeable consequence of a negligent act. The Court emphasised that BDW acted under a mix of moral obligation, commercial pressure to avoid reputational damage, and potential legal exposure to future claims.
This decision represents as shift toward supporting parties who act to mitigate serious building safety risks, even without immediate legal compulsion.
Does the BSA's Extended Limitation Period Apply to Related Claims?
Section 135 of the BSA extends the limitation period for claims under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 ("DPA") to 30 years for claims accruing before 28June 2022. URS contended that this extension did not apply to negligence or contributory claims, only to direct DPA claims.
The Supreme Court disagreed, interpreting the legislation broadly. It held that the phrase “action by virtue of the DPA” includes related and dependent claims, such as those under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. The Court affirmed the policy intent behind the BSA: those responsible for creating building safety defects should bear the cost of remediation directly or indirectly.
This ensures a "waterfall" liability structure: leaseholders can pursue developers, and developers can pursue their consultants or contractors, preserving accountability throughout the supply chain.
Can Developers Bring Claims Under the DPA?
URS contended that the DPA only protects end-users like leaseholders, not commercial developers. The Supreme Court firmly rejected this restrictive interpretation.
The Court held that developers are owed a statutory duty under section 1(1)(a) DPA if they ordered the construction of a dwelling, even if they simultaneously owe duties to homeowners under section 1(1)(b). This dual status reflects the real-world complexity of modern construction projects and ensures that parties commissioning works are not left without remedy against negligent professionals.
Are Contribution Claims Valid Without Prior Legal Action?
Finally, the Court addressed whether BDW could claim a contribution from URS without any judgment or third-party claim against it. URS argued that, absent a legal determination of liability, there could be no contribution.
Again, the Court took a pragmatic stance, ruling that a “payment in kind,” such as carrying out remedial works, constitutes a sufficient "payment" under the Contribution Act. This unlocks contribution claims where developers undertake repairs proactively, often in the public interest, before formal claims arise.
Implications for the Construction Industry
The judgment is a decisive endorsement of public policy over technical legal defences. It strengthens the hand of developers and building owners who remediate defects in good faith and later seek to hold design professionals, contractors, or suppliers accountable.
Key implications include:
Developers can recover voluntarily incurred remedial costs from negligent parties, provided the decision to repair was reasonable.
Limitation periods for claims under the DPA and by extension, contribution and negligence claims are now effectively 30 years for pre-June 2022 defects.
Developers are owed duties under the DPA, not just leaseholders or homeowners.
No prior legal claim is required to trigger contribution rights, enabling earlier and more efficient cost recovery across the supply chain.
For contractors, engineers, and consultants, the judgment is a warning: long-tail liability is now a real and enduring risk. Insurance strategies, document retention policies, and risk assessments must evolve accordingly.
Conclusion: A Pivotal Shift Toward Proactive Remediation
URS v BDW is a significant addition to the post-Grenfell legal landscape, clarifying that developers who take responsible steps to remedy unsafe buildings may still recover their costs- even years later and without a court order against them. The decision ensures that the BSA’s objectives are not undermined by technical defences, and affirms a more expansive view of accountability within the built environment.
While future claims will still turn on their facts, the Court has left little doubt that building safety comes before procedural convenience and that those responsible for design and construction will remain in the frame for as long as necessary.
