Category: Insurance case law · Reviewed by Tim Roche, Director · PI & Commercial · Last reviewed June 2026
Supreme Court decision on the scope of claims between developers and construction consultants under the Defective Premises Act 1972 and the Building Safety Act 2022, including the operation of the extended limitation periods.
BDW Trading Ltd, a large national residential developer, had developed a number of high-rise residential blocks for which URS Corporation Ltd, a multidisciplinary engineering consultancy, had carried out structural design work. Following the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017 and the consequent re-examination of fire safety and structural standards in high-rise residential buildings, latent design defects emerged in several of the developments. BDW carried out, or undertook to carry out, very substantial remedial works to remedy the defects, even where it had already sold the relevant flats to third party owners and had no continuing contractual obligation.
BDW then sought to recover its remediation costs from URS, alleging negligent design. The claims raised three distinct but linked questions of law. First, whether a developer that had voluntarily incurred remediation costs could recover those costs from its design consultant in the tort of negligence, given that the loss might be characterised as pure economic loss assumed voluntarily. Second, whether the extension of the limitation period under the Defective Premises Act 1972 effected by section 135 of the Building Safety Act 2022 — extending the period retrospectively to thirty years for historical claims and prospectively to fifteen years — operated to revive claims that had previously been time-barred, and whether that extension applied to claims by a developer as well as claims against a developer. Third, whether a developer was a “person to whose order” a dwelling was provided within section 1(1) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 such that it was owed a duty under the Act by the consultant.
The case had reached the Supreme Court after substantial first-instance proceedings and a Court of Appeal decision in 2023. The Supreme Court’s judgment has been awaited as the leading authority on developer-consultant claims in the post-Grenfell remediation context.
The first issue was whether a developer’s voluntarily incurred remediation costs were recoverable in tort from a design consultant on a scope-of-duty basis, having regard to SAAMCO principles and the line of authority in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20. The second issue was the proper construction and effect of section 135 of the Building Safety Act 2022, including its retrospective operation and its application to claims by developers. The third issue was whether a developer fell within section 1(1) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 as a person owed a duty by a consultant, the answer being directly material to the proper allocation of remediation cost recovery across the construction supply chain.
The Supreme Court determined the appeals in BDW’s favour on the principal issues, providing important clarifications on the scope of recovery, the operation of section 135 of the Building Safety Act 2022 and the breadth of section 1(1) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 in the developer-consultant context. The court confirmed that the Act’s extended limitation provisions were intended by Parliament to operate broadly, including in relation to claims between commercial parties up and down the supply chain, and that the policy of the legislation was to facilitate the recovery of historic building safety remediation costs.
On the scope of the consultant’s duty, the court accepted that a developer that has acted reasonably in carrying out remediation in response to a real risk of harm or to comply with its own legal obligations may recover the costs of that work as damages against a consultant whose negligent design caused the underlying defect. The recovery is consistent with the SAAMCO/Manchester Building Society scope-of-duty framework once the consultant’s duty is properly characterised in the high-rise residential context.
On section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, the court adopted a wide reading, holding that the developer fell within the persons to whom the duty under the Act was owed, with the consequence that the developer could pursue the consultant under the Act and benefit from the extended limitation periods.
A construction consultant whose negligent design causes a high-rise residential building to suffer a building safety defect may be liable to the developer for the reasonable costs of remediation, whether voluntarily incurred or required by law, applying the scope-of-duty framework in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton. Section 135 of the Building Safety Act 2022 operates to extend the limitation periods under the Defective Premises Act 1972 retrospectively and prospectively in claims between commercial parties as well as in claims by purchasers, in accordance with the policy of the legislation. A developer is within the class of persons to whom a duty is owed by a consultant under section 1(1) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 in the high-rise residential context.
URS v BDW is, with Martlet Homes v Mulalley, the leading post-Grenfell decision shaping construction PI exposure. For consultant PI insurers it confirms a substantial pathway for developers to recover remediation costs from designers up the chain, supported by the extended Defective Premises Act limitation periods. This significantly enlarges the latency window of exposure on long-tail PI policies — claims arising from designs many years old are now squarely within the frame.
Insurers have responded by tightening underwriting questions about historical high-rise residential work, applying specific exclusions or sub-limits for cladding and fire safety risks, requiring run-off arrangements on consolidating or retiring firms, and reviewing aggregation and notification provisions to manage the wave of building safety claims. The case also has direct implications for D&O cover within consultancy groups, for warranty and indemnity cover on M&A in the consultancy sector, and for the contractor PI market where Defective Premises Act claims now reach contractors whose work falls within section 1 of the 1972 Act.
For brokers, the case underpins the need to discuss with the underwriter the firm’s historical portfolio of high-rise residential work, its quality assurance regime and its retention of design records. Clients with significant pre-2017 high-rise residential exposure should expect close scrutiny.
By Matt Bartlett, Director, on 2026-06-06. Next review: 2026-12-06.
This entry is part of the Apex Insurance Wiki. Last reviewed by Matt Bartlett on 2026-06-06. Apex Insurance Brokers Limited, FCA FRN 724952, Companies House 07014570. Not regulated advice — consult your broker on your specific position.
SEO meta: - Title: URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd | UK Insurance Wiki | Apex Insurance Brokers - Slug: /wiki/cases/urs-v-bdw-trading/ - Schema: Article + LegalCase + BreadcrumbList
Apex Insurance Brokers serves UK professional services firms and commercial businesses. Call 0117 325 0027, email hello@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk, or request a quotation.
Get a quote