UK Supreme Court: Retrospective Negligence Claims following Voluntary Remedial Works
Introduction
On 21 May 2025, the UK Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case of URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd 1.
As one of the first major rulings to interpret the Building Safety Act 2022 (the “BSA”), the Court dismissed URS Corporation Limited’s (“URS”) claim entirely, setting a significant precedent.
Notably, the judgment clarifies the scope of duty in tort for contractors and confirms that the BSA can support retrospective claims for remedial works, even where the claimant no longer has a proprietary interest in the property, and remedial works were undertaken voluntarily.
The ruling is expected to have broader implications, potentially influencing legal and legislative developments in Ireland, where similar claims are gaining traction.
Background
Following the tragic Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, the UK Government encouraged developers to inspect high-rise buildings for similar risks and to carry out remedial works. The BSA was enacted to support and enforce the safety standards across the construction industry.
BDW Trading Limited (“BDW”), a developer of several high-rise residential buildings, had engaged URS as its structural engineers on certain projects and following Grenfell, BDW discovered serious structural defects in two URS designed developments, posing risks to resident safety.
Despite not having a proprietary interest in the property and facing no claims from the owners or occupiers, BDW carried out extensive remedial works. In 2020, BDW brought proceedings in negligence against URS to recover the costs, as any contractual claims were time barred due to the expiration of the limitation period.
BDW’s Changed Claim
The BSA extended the limitation period for claims under s.1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (the “DPA”) from 6 to 30 years. This provision imposes a duty on developers to ensure dwellings are constructed properly and safely. Relying on this change to the law, BDW successfully amended its case to include a claim under DPA, together with a claim under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (the “Contribution Act”).
The Preliminary Court determined that URS owed BDW a duty of care that extended to the alleged losses. URS appealed the decision, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court thereafter.
Court of Appeal decision affirmed by the Supreme Court
The Court of Appeal dismissed URS’s appeal on four grounds, which were affirmed by the Supreme Court:
Ground 1: Voluntary Repairs
URS argued that BDW had no legal obligation to carry out remedial works, as it no longer had a proprietary interest in the developments and any claims were time-barred. URS claimed the resulting losses were outside the scope of its duty and were voluntarily incurred by BDW. The Court rejected this, finding that BDW acted to prevent serious risk of injury or death, which made the losses foreseeable and within the scope of URS’s duty.
Ground 2: Retrospective Effect of s.135 of the BSA
While it was accepted that s.135 of the BSA extends the limitation period for claims under s.1 of the DPA from 6 to 30 years, the dispute centred on whether this extension applied retrospectively to other claims that rely on the limitation period in s.1 of the DPA, even if those claims are not directly under s.1 of the DPA itself. The Court held that s.135(5) does apply retrospectively, and it is not limited solely to claims under the DPA and therefore, BDW could bring a claim in tort and for contribution.
Ground 3: Duty under the DPA
The Court confirmed that URS owed BDW a duty under s.1 of the DPA. It held that BDW, as the party that ordered the work, fell within the class of persons to whom a duty is owed. Since URS carried out structural design services “to the order of” BDW, a duty under the DPA clearly applied.
Ground 4: Claim under the Contribution Act
URS argued that BDW’s claim for contribution was premature, as there had been no third-party claim, judgment or settlement. The Court rejected this, clarifying that a contribution claim arises when:
- Damage has been suffered for which both parties are liable; and
- One party has paid compensation, whether directly or through remedial action.
Implications of the UK Supreme Court Decision
The decision marks a significant development for the construction industry, particularly for developers, professionals and insurers seeking to bring a claim for defective building work. The Court affirmed that liability for negligence can continue even after a developer no longer has a proprietary interest in the property and has taken proactive steps to remedy the issue and mitigate harm.
The decision triggers a discussion as to whether similar reforms could be applied in Ireland. While Irish case law, such as Brandley2, modestly extends the 6 year limitation period under the “manifestation” principle, the BSA’s 30 year period presents a far more generous framework – one that balances fairness to developers with greater accountability for contractors in the construction industry.
Contact
For more on this topic, please do not hesitate to contact Liam Collins, Harry Caulfield or Conal McCluskey of our Litigation and Dispute Resolution Team.
1 URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21
2 Brandley and WJB Developments Limited –v Hubert Dean T/A Hubert Dean & Associates and John Lohan T/A John Lohan Ground Works and Tractors (High Court 2010/10994P and Appeal 2015/245)