URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd
Citation: [2025] UKSC 21
Background Facts
-
After the Grenfell Tower fire, widespread investigations revealed serious fire and structural safety defects in many buildings. BDW discovered such defects in two major developments ("Capital East" and "Freemens Meadow") originally designed by URS.
-
BDW sold its proprietary interests in the buildings but later carried out major remedial works in 2020 and 2021 to fix safety issues.
-
BDW sought to recover the costs (about £47 million) from URS in tort for negligent design and under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA), as well as contribution claims.
-
URS argued BDW had acted voluntarily, had no legal obligation to do repairs, and had no claim since they no longer owned the buildings.
​Judgment
-
Supreme Court decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed URS’s appeal and upheld BDW's claims in principle.
​
-
Key findings:
-
No “voluntariness principle”: BDW’s repair costs were not outside URS’s duty of care, nor too remote, merely because BDW no longer owned the buildings or chose to act without legal compulsion.
-
Scope of duty: The negligent design duty covered economic losses arising from defective buildings, and repairs were precisely the type of loss contemplated.
-
Remoteness: The cost of repairs was foreseeable and within URS's assumed responsibility; thus, not too remote.
-
DPA claims and limitation: The retrospective extension of limitation periods under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) applied to BDW’s DPA claims, meaning they were not time-barred.
-
Contribution claims: BDW could claim contribution from URS under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 even without a third-party claim or judgment, as potential liability existed at the time repairs were done.
-
​
-
Outcome:
BDW’s negligence and DPA claims could proceed to trial on factual questions like causation and mitigation; no bright-line rule excluded their recovery.
General Principles Developed
-
Voluntariness and recovery:
There is no bright-line rule barring recovery of losses voluntarily incurred if they are otherwise within the scope of a defendant’s duty and not too remote. A claimant can recover reasonable repair costs even without a strict legal compulsion.
​
-
Scope of duty clarified:
In professional negligence cases, the scope of duty is defined by the purpose of the engagement (e.g., providing safe, defect-free designs), and damages for repair costs are squarely within that scope.
​
-
Remoteness (contractual foreseeability test):
Economic loss is recoverable when it is of a type reasonably contemplated by the parties at the time of the contract or assumption of responsibility (the "contract test").
​
-
Building Safety Act effect:
Section 135 of the BSA extending limitation periods to 30 years applies retroactively, even to ongoing litigation, and does not violate defendants’ rights.
​
-
Contribution claims liberalised:
A contribution claim can be pursued even without a formal claim from or judgment in favor of a third party. The potential or contingent liability at the time repairs are carried out suffices.
​
-
Policy reinforcement:
The law favours encouraging proactive remediation of dangerous defects by developers to protect occupants and public safety, rather than penalising them for taking responsibility.