Supreme Court affirms developer’s right to bring negligence, DPA 1972 and contribution claims for repair costs against structural engineer (URS v BDW) – Mathias Cheung writes for LexisNexis

In this case analysis for LexisNexis, Mathias Cheung summarises the Supreme Court’s judgment in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 (21 May 2025).

Introduction

This is the latest installment in a series of decisions arising out of claims by a developer (BDW) against its structural engineer (URS) in respect of structural defects in two residential developments, where the repair works were carried out at a time when it no longer had any proprietary interest in the developments and no claims had been intimated by the any third parties.

In its much-anticipated judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Technology and Construction Court and the Court of Appeal, holding that: (i) the repair costs fell within URS’s scope of duty and were not too remote; (ii) the retrospectively extended limitation period in s.135(3) of the Building Safety Act 2022 meant that there was no relevant time bar at the time of the repair works; (iii) URS owed a duty under s.1(1)(a) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 to BDW as the developer; (iv) BDW was entitled to claim a contribution from URS when it had paid compensation (in kind) by carrying out the repairs. However, the Supreme Court refrained from considering the principles on the accrual of a tortious claim and preferred to leave that question to a future case.

Click here to read the full article on LexisNexis (behind subscriber paywall).

Fiona Parkin KC, Rónán Hanna and Christopher Reid appeared for URS in the TCC before Fraser J. Fiona Parkin KC, Rónán Hanna and Christopher Reid appeared for URS in the Court of Appeal. Fiona Parkin KC appeared for URS in the Supreme Court.  They were instructed by Steven Williams and Catherine Gelder of CMS.