• Twitter Icon
Phone usCall Us
Find us Find Us
Enfield:enfield@curwens.co.uk


Hoddesdon: hoddesdon@curwens.co.uk


Royston: royston@curwens.co.uk

Contact us

News

Supreme Court Update: "No Escape From Liability"

Published: 25/06/2025
Written by Curwens Solicitors

Supreme Court Update: "No Escape From Liability" For Enginerrs Of Structurally Flawed Buildings

In the aftermath of the tragic Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, it was discovered that many high-rise buildings in the UK had major safety defects centred around non-fire-resistant cladding. In response to the subsequent public outcry, the government introduced the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA), encouraging and legally obligating developers to fix the unsafe buildings they had had built.

BDW Trading Ltd, a major housebuilder behind well-known brands like Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes, investigated its older developments and found serious design flaws in two particular high-rise projects, Capital East in east London, and Freemans Meadow in Leicester.

no escape for engineers 1

Both developments comprised multiple residential tower blocks, with practical completion occurring between 2005 and 2012. BDW sold its interests in both properties between 2008 and 2015.

Despite no longer owning the properties and even though no claims had been made against them, once having discovered these serious structural design defects, BDW undertook remedial works between 2020 and 2021 to address the safety risks. In 2020, BDW sued URS Corporation Ltd who were the structural engineers for these projects, for negligence, claiming back the cost of repairs.

Legal Journey

Initially, the High Court allowed BDW’s claim to proceed. Then, after the BSA came into force in 2022, the time limit for claims about unsafe buildings was extended from 6 to 30 years. Subsequently BDW then added new claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA) and the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.

URS objected and appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed their arguments in 2023. URS then appealed to the UK Supreme Court, which considered four main issues and published their judgement last month.

Supreme Court Decision

Ground 1: Was BDW's Repair Cost a Valid Loss?

URS argued that BDW’s costs weren’t recoverable because

  • BDW didn’t own the buildings anymore
  • No one had forced them to do the repairs
  • The claims from current owners would have been out of time

The Supreme Court rejected this, saying that just because BDW fixed the buildings voluntarily doesn’t mean their loss isn’t real or recoverable. In fact, BDW likely acted to avoid serious risk to residents. Whether it was “reasonable” to do the repairs will be decided later at trial

Ground 2: Does the 30-year Time Extension in the BSA Apply to BDW's Claims?

Yes. The BSA’s Section 135 allows old claims (under the DPA) to be revived, unless the case was already settled or concluded before 28 June 2022. The Court said this also covers related claims like negligence and contribution—not just direct DPA claims.


This interpretation matches the law’s aim: to hold those responsible for unsafe buildings accountable and allow developers like BDW to pursue the original designers or builders.

supreme court no escape from liability          Capital East in DocklandsGround 3: Did URS Owe BDW a Duty Under the DPA?

URS argued that BDW, being a developer, couldn’t also be protected by the DPA. But the Court disagreed. BDW was the first owner of the dwellings and the party that ordered the work from URS. So, URS did owe BDW a legal duty to ensure the work was done properly under Section 1(1)(a) of the DPA.

The Court also confirmed that the kind of loss BDW suffered—repair costs—is the type covered by the DPA.

Ground 4: Could BDW Claim Contribution from URS Even if No One Had Sued BDW?

URS said BDW couldn’t use the Contribution Act unless a homeowner had actually sued BDW or there had been a formal settlement. The Court disagreed.
It held that a developer like BDW can claim contribution once it has compensated for the damage, even informally—for example, by repairing defects. BDW had fixed the buildings at its own cost, so it had a valid claim for contribution from URS Corporation Ltd, even though no one had sued BDW.

Conclusion

The UK Supreme Court unanimously dismissed URS’s appeal on all four grounds. It ruled that BDW’s claims for negligence, under the DPA, and for contribution were legally valid. The case highlights how the courts are supporting efforts to make buildings safe and ensure those responsible for dangerous designs are held accountable—even years later.



 

Please note that our briefings are for informational purposes only, and do not constitute legal advice.

testimonials

GET IN TOUCH

Any data that you submit using this web form will be held by our firm as Data Controller and will be held securely for 12 months before being securely and confidentially destroyed.
Find out more Your data will not be disclosed to any third parties without your consent or as otherwise allowed by the relevant Data Protection legislation and will only be used for responding to your query (or purposes associated with that purpose).

You have the right to be informed about what data we hold about you along with other rights set out in the legislation. Further information about your rights under the data protection legislation can be found at www.ico.org.uk

Full details can be found here

Please let us know your name.
Please enter a valid phone number
Error, invalid email address or address already exists in a contact request.
Invalid Input
Please select an office
Please let us know your message.

testimonials

GET IN TOUCH

Any data that you submit using this web form will be held by our firm as Data Controller and will be held securely for 12 months before being securely and confidentially destroyed.
Find out more Your data will not be disclosed to any third parties without your consent or as otherwise allowed by the relevant Data Protection legislation and will only be used for responding to your query (or purposes associated with that purpose).

You have the right to be informed about what data we hold about you along with other rights set out in the legislation. Further information about your rights under the data protection legislation can be found at www.ico.org.uk

Full details can be found here

Please let us know your name.
Please enter a valid phone number
Error, invalid email address or address already exists in a contact request.
Invalid Input
Please select an office
Please let us know your message.

AWARDS & ACCREDITATIONS