Supreme Court rules in favour of BDW

The Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited decision in the BDW v URS litigation, resolving a series of issues that have caused uncertainty in building safety claims since the Building Safety Act 2022 came into force. The ruling, which found in BDW’s favour on all counts, provides important guidance for developers, consultants and insurers on how liability will be approached going forward.

The case arose from two residential towers developed by BDW prior to the Grenfell tragedy in 2017, for which URS had been appointed as structural engineer. By 2019, serious structural defects were identified, prompting evacuations and extensive remedial works, even though BDW no longer owned the buildings.

In 2020, BDW pursued URS in negligence to recover its losses, later amending its pleadings to include claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA) and the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 following the Building Safety Act’s retrospective extension of limitation periods. Both the Technology and Construction Court and the Court of Appeal sided with BDW, but URS escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

In its judgment, the Court dismissed the suggestion that BDW’s repairs were “voluntary” and therefore irrecoverable. It emphasised that the defects created risks of injury or death, that BDW carried potential liability under the DPA or contract, and that commercial and reputational considerations made remediation unavoidable. The Court confirmed that repair costs in such circumstances fall within the scope of duty owed by the negligent designer.

It also held that the Building Safety Act’s retrospective 30-year limitation period is not confined to claims brought directly under the DPA, but extends to negligence and contribution claims that are dependent on it. This broad interpretation is consistent with the legislation’s purpose of ensuring accountability and encouraging the proactive remediation of defects.

On the question of whether developers themselves can benefit from the DPA, the Court made clear that the duty extends to any person “to whose order” a dwelling is provided, which includes developers as the party instructing the work. This widens the range of parties able to pursue claims for defective design or construction. Finally, the Court rejected URS’s argument that BDW could not seek contribution without prior proceedings from homeowners, confirming that carrying out remedial works was sufficient to establish liability and trigger rights under the Contribution Act.

The judgment marks a significant step in clarifying the allocation of building safety liabilities. Developers now have stronger grounds to recover the costs of remedial works, while consultants and their insurers face an extended exposure both in time and in scope. At the policy level, the Court’s reasoning reflects a desire to ensure that dangerous defects are remedied swiftly, with the financial burden falling on those responsible for the underlying negligence.

Reference: Clyde & Co, Case Law Update: Avidly Awaited Supreme Court Decision in BDW v URS (May 2025).