How URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 enhances the ability to bring claims for defective residential works under Section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972

We set out below, the key practical implications this judgment is likely to have from a claimant’s perspective (including that of homeowners as well as developers) when seeking to make a claim under Section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (“DPA”).

These include, but are not limited to, the following:

Extended limitation periods — up to 30 years

The Court has reaffirmed again that the extended limitation periods introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022, being 30 years retrospectively and 15 years prospectively, apply to DPA claims. This is particularly relevant for claimants dealing with latent defect in residential properties that only become apparent many years after completion. This often happens in claims with hidden defects for example in subsidence claims. Claims that were previously considered time-barred may now be viable, allowing claimants to revisit defects in residential buildings completed as far back as 1992.

Wider pool of eligible claimants

Critically, the Court clarified that the duty under Section 1 DPA is not confined to individual homeowners or occupiers. Developers and building owners who do not have a current proprietary interest in the property, but who have incurred the cost of remedying defects may themselves bring claims under the DPA. This means that developers who have undertaken remedial works, whether in response to their own inspections or to third-party concerns, can seek recovery from those responsible for the original defects, such as consultants and contractors.

No requirement for a prior claim against a second defendant for contributions

The Court also ruled that a party may pursue a contribution claim under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 without having issued a claim against that additional defendant first. This is especially useful in scenarios where a developer has proactively carried out remedial works and seeks to recover those costs from third parties. The fact that this enhances developers’ ability to recover costs pre-emptively, could in turn lead to a different approach to claims by homeowners, hopefully reducing financial exposure and facilitating earlier dispute resolution.

A broader interpretation of ‘Fitness for Habitation’

The Court endorsed a wide interpretation of what constitutes a dwelling regarded as unfit for habitation under the DPA. This may include issues relating to fire safety, structural integrity, ventilation, insulation, and other features that materially affect the health or safety of occupants. Claimants can now advance claims for a wider range of construction issues, even where defects are not immediately apparent or do not involve structural failure. The threshold for establishing liability under Section 1 is therefore much more achievable.

Improved negotiating position for claimants

With the possibility of relying on longer limitation periods and an expanded scope of duty, claimants will hopefully now be in a stronger position during pre-action discussions which may assist in settlement negotiations. At the same time, it will be harder for defendants to put up procedural defences to avoid liability. This shift should have the effect of increasing the likelihood of early settlement and reducing the need for protracted litigation, particularly in cases involving historical defects. This will be a most welcome development particularly for homeowners otherwise faced with the formidable and daunting prospect of court proceedings.

The URS v BDW decision therefore appears to present ground breaking potential for homeowners and developers when considering claims under Section 1 DPA and has significantly strengthened the position of those seeking redress from those responsible for defective works.

Please see here our Construction Team’s article which provides a detailed analysis of the Judgment in URS v BDW [2005] UKSC 21. Both the Construction Team and the Property Litigation team at Edwin Coe have extensive experience in dealing with building safety issues. The Property Litigation team has recently obtained a Remediation order in the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal and is currently awaiting Judgment in a High Court claim concerning the DPA. For further information, please contact Tara Jones, Joanna Osborne or any solicitors in the Property & Trusts Litigation team.