URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd - Guidance from the Supreme Court on the Building Safety Act

In its long awaited decision in the case of URS Corporation Ltd (“URS”) v BDW Trading Ltd (“BDW”) [2025] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court has addressed the application of the Building Safety Act 2022 (the "BSA") and the Defective Premises Act 1972 (the "DPA"). The case is important for developers, consultants and contractors alike, and we have set out the key issues below.

Factual background

BDW URS as a structural design consultant in connection with the development of several high-rise residential buildings in England. These works were completed between 2007 and 2012. In late 2019, BDW carried out post-Grenfell investigations on two developments containing high-rise residential buildings which were built according to structural designs provided by URS ("the Developments"). Having found design defects which potentially impacted the structural integrity and safety of the Developments, BDW voluntarily carried out remedial works to the defects, despite not having a proprietary interest in the Developments at the time. BDW claimed the costs of that repair work from URS.

Court action and first appeal

In March 2020, BDW raised a court action to recover its costs associated with the remedial works. A trial on preliminary issues (one which does not make a final determination on the extent of liabilities) was held and in October 2021 the court found that URS had a duty of care to BDW, including losses suffered by BDW (except reputational damage). Following that hearing and the subsequent introduction of s135 of the BSA (which came into force in June 2022), BDW applied to make new claims against URS under the DPA and the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (the "Contribution Act") and was successful in its application to have those claims considered.

Appeal to the supreme court

URS unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed in July 2023. For more on that decision, please see our earlier article here. URS received permission from the Supreme Court to appeal and the Supreme Court issues its judgment on 21 May 2025. URS had four grounds of appeal, which were each dismissed by the Court:

1. Were BDW's repair costs outside the scope of URS's duty of care because they were voluntarily incurred by BDW?

URS argued it should not be responsible for BDW's repair costs because BDW (1) had no proprietary interest in the Developments when it carried out the repair works and "voluntarily" incurred the cost (2) the repair costs were too remote, being outside of the scope of duty of URS's duty of care as design consultant. This argument was rejected by the Supreme Court, who disagreed that "voluntarily" incurred losses could not be recovered in general. This was an issue which may go to causation and mitigation, but that was a fact specific issue which required to be addressed at a later trial. The Court also made comment that it was questionable, where there were risks of death or injury to homeowners, whether BDW’s approach could properly be considered “voluntary”.

2. Did s135 BSA (which came into force on 28 June 2022, and which retrospectively extended the limitation period for claims under s1 of the DPA to 30 years) apply to claims which are dependent on s1 of the DPA? 

In this case, BDW’s claims were in negligence and for contribution against URS. URS argued that this meant the extension of rights did not apply. The Supreme Court said that it did, saying that s135 refers to "an action by virtue of" the DPA, and was not limited to actions under that provision. The Court’s position was that this was consistent with the driving principle that those responsible for defects should be held responsible under the DPA.

3. Did s1(1)(a) DPA apply only to owners and leaseholders of dwellings, or did it also apply to developers?

The Supreme Court confirmed this section should be read as imposing a duty to any person – including a developer – to whose order a dwelling is being built, as well as to parties who have a legal or equitable interest in the dwelling. The relevant work here was carried out by URS to the order of BDW, and URS therefore owed BDW a duty under s1 DPA. The Court rejected the suggestion that there was any issue with BDW simultaneously owing duties (to homeowners) and being owed duties (by URS).

4. Was BDW entitled to claim against URS under s1 of the Contribution Act in the absence of any judgment or settlement between BDW and a third party, and in the absence of any third party asserting a claim against BDW? 

The Supreme Court confirmed it was sufficient for the purposes of s1 that BDW had made a "payment in kind" by performing remedial works in compensation for the damage suffered by the homeowners. BDW was not prevented in succeeding in its claim simply because there had been no judgment against BDW or settlement reached. The key issue was that BDW had “paid” towards a damage for which both BDW and URS were potentially liable.

Implications for the construction industry

Whilst not all issues around the BSA have been finally resolved by this case, it seems clear that the Courts are keen to support the underlying intention of the BSA – to pass liability to those responsible for the original works. This decision suggests that the Courts will seek, where possible, to support a party who appears to be doing “the right thing” and fixing historic issues. Whilst the door has been left open to factual arguments about the extent of any liability, the principles of its existence have been confirmed.

For more information about the Building Safety Act visit our Building & Fire Safety Hub.