Case
URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21
Full Judgement
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2023_0110_judgment_updated_1f47885f41.pdf
Heard on 2,3, 4 and 5 December.
Judgement released on 21 May 2025.
Questions for the Court
This questions which the Supreme Court needed to address included the relationship between S135 of the Building Safety Act and S1 of the Defective Premises Act, including time limits. They also needed to assess the duties owed in tort from a designer to a developer.
Background
BDW (the Developer) brought a claim in negligence against URS (the structural design consultant). BDW discovered structural design defects after it had sold its interests in the building. It decided to perform remedial works to rectify the defects even though no claim had been raised by any third party (such as an occupier). Any third-party claim would have been time barred.
Judgment
The full judgement itself can be found via the above link.
Some bullet points:
- URS owed BDW a duty of care to guard against pure economic loss (i.e the repair costs of the developments)
- BDW did not need to face a claim, settlement, or judgment from a third party. It could go ahead and remedy the defects “voluntarily” and its decision to do so was reasonable. And anyway, it might not actually be that voluntary given that if BDW waited or did nothing it risked reputational damage, risked the health and safety of the occupants etc.
- Developers can owe a duty of care to homeowners and simultaneously be owed a duty by its designer and contractors under the Defective Premises Act.
- Where a homeowner benefits from the 30-year time limit to bring a claim under the Defective Premises Act (per S135 of the BSA), then the Developer should also have the same opportunity to bring “onward” claims for contribution or negligence against consultants or contractors. To deny a Developer this right would be “legally incoherent and create two contradictory parallel universes”.
- BDW was entitled to claim a contribution from URS when payment was first made in connection with damage for which both parties are liable, which, in this case, was when BDW remediated the defects.
As always, these things could turn on the specific facts, but it is an interesting judgment and indicates strong support for the reach and bite of the Building Safety Act, from the highest court in the land.
Conclusion
In our view the Supreme Court has backed the overriding intentions of the Building Safety Act 2022. It has confidently endorsed the legislative and legal avenues available to hold those responsible for building safety defects to account.