The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 in which it unanimously dismissed URS’s appeal on all four grounds. Michael Walsh KC acted for the Secretary of State who intervened on Ground 2. This is the first time the Supreme Court has considered claims arising under the Building Safety Act 2022.

In its decision on this ground the Court cited extensively from the Secretary of State’s submissions and noted the importance of retrospectivity to Part 5 of the BSA, which is reflected not only in section 135 but in all the main changes to the law made by Part 5.

The following is a very brief summary of the decision, which runs to 88 pages.

Ground 1: Negligence and Voluntariness

The Court rejected URS’s argument that BDW’s repair costs were not recoverable because they were voluntarily incurred. It held that no “voluntariness principle” in law barred recovery and that BDW’s actions were arguably not voluntary due to safety risks to residents.

Ground 2: Retrospective Effect of s.135 BSA

The Court held that s.135(3) BSA, which extends limitation periods retrospectively, applies not only to direct DPA claims but also to related negligence and contribution claims. The Supreme Court reiterated that the central purpose and policy of the BSA’s was to hold those responsible for historic defects to account and that purpose would be undermined if s.135(3) BSA were restricted to actions under s.1 DPA. 

Ground 3: Duty under the DPA

URS owed BDW a duty under s.1(1)(a) DPA as the developer who ordered the work. The Court rejected the idea that a developer cannot simultaneously owe and be owed a duty under the DPA.

Ground 4: Contribution Claim Timing

The Court decided that a contribution claim under the 1978 Act arises once a party (here, BDW) has paid compensation for damage, even if no formal claim, judgment, or settlement has occurred. BDW’s in-kind payment through repairs sufficed.

The judgment can be read in full here.