In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that developers can reclaim the costs of building safety remediation work from contractors
On 21 May 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal made by URS Corporation Ltd against BDW Trading (Barratt Redrow) in relation to remediation work on two sets of multiple high-rise residential building developments. URS, which is now part of AECOM, had provided engineering consultancy services for the Capital East and Freemens Meadow developments, located in London and Leicester.
In the aftermath of the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, BDW discovered defects at both developments and carried out repairs in 2020 and 2021. It is understood that this was done even though no claims had been made against the developer by a third-party owner or occupant of either development. Additionally, the developer “no longer had any proprietary interest in the developments”. BDW stated that “the defects, if left unremedied, presented a danger to occupants and risked serious damage to BDW’s reputation in the market.
“The losses claimed by BDW from URS relate to the costs of executing those remedial works, together with associated costs.”
In March 2020, the developer initiated proceedings against URS “in the tort of negligence”. As reported by Inside Housing, the claim was amended following the implementation of the Building Safety Act (BSA) in 2022. Section 135 of the BSA permits the limitation period for claims made under the Defective Premises Act (DPA) 1972 to be retrospectively extended from six years to 30 years.
The amendments sought to bring a new claim against URS for contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 “on the basis that both parties were under in-time liabilities for the same damage under the DPA at the time that BDW undertook the relevant repairs”.
In 2023, URS was granted permission by the Supreme Court to make an appeal on four grounds, including whether BDW had in fact “suffered actionable and recoverable damage” or if the damage was “outside the scope of the duty of care and/or too remote because it was voluntarily incurred”; whether section 135 of the BSA applied in the present circumstances; whether URS owed a duty to BDW under section 1(1)(a) of the DPA; and whether BDW was entitled to bring a claim against URS under the terms of the Contribution Act.
All four grounds were dismissed unanimously on 21 May 2025, with the Supreme Court clarifying that developers could seek costs for historic defects from contractors following the extension of the limitation period under section 135 of the BSA. It also dismissed that BDW had been acting voluntarily, stating that the developer was “not exercising a sufficiently full and free choice so as to be regarded as acting voluntarily in effecting the repairs”.
“In other words, BDW had no realistic alternative.”
The court added: “There is no rule of law which meant that the carrying out of the repairs by BDW rendered the repair costs outside the scope of the duty of care owed or too remote.”
Acting for BDW was Rob Horne, head of construction disputes at Osborne Clarke. As reported by The Construction Index, Horne said that the ruling offered “significantly more clarity” for residential developers over the “full effect” of the retrospective limitation period introduced by the BSA.
“Ultimately, the aim of the BSA was to ensure that safety failures are properly addressed and that those responsible bear the costs. This case furthers that aim by ensuring that developers have a clearer path to recover funds from designers and constructors who designed and built unsafe buildings.”
He also noted the court’s support for taking a “proactive approach towards remedying defects, particularly as they relate to health and safety”, adding that “proactive developers who, in effect, do the right thing in effecting necessary safety works, should not be penalised by having rights of recovery barred”.
As reported by Construction Management, a Barratt Redrow spokesperson said: “We are pleased that in this landmark case, the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal on all grounds and clarified the responsibility of wider companies for remediating defects in developments they were involved in building.
“Whether remediation is required because of defects in design, supply of inappropriate products or workmanship issues, it is vital that the companies who played a part step up and put things right, as we have done with the developments in this case.”
A spokesperson for URS said: “The judgment provides clarity on certain preliminary legal issues relating to legacy matters. It does not resolve the substantive issues, which will be addressed in the next stages of the legal process.”
Commenting on the impact of the judgment on future cases, Anthony Willis, Partner at Addleshaw Goddard LLP, said: “The Supreme Court's judgment will no doubt provide comfort to developers in similar positions to BDW that they are able to pursue 'onwards' claims against the construction supply chain and allocate the cost of remedial works between culpable parties accordingly.”
From Kennedys’, Senior Associate Chloe Bingham and Associate Elliot Hagan noted that the judgment placed a “clear expectation on the industry (which will include insurance) to ensure that there is a fair and reasonable allocation of the risk of incurring losses in carrying out remediation works to unsafe properties”.
They added: “While fact specific arguments as to causation, mitigation, and remoteness remain open, it would seem that this judgment will pave the way for a further influx of claims made by developers and building owners against their supply chain – as well as the insurers of those involved.”
You can read the full Supreme Court judgment here.