Insights That Drive Safer, Safe Decisions
 

The UK construction industry has just witnessed a pivotal moment. On May 21, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd—a decision poised to fundamentally reshape liability, limitation periods, and professional duties across the built environment.

While this case has understandably garnered extensive legal commentary, its implications stretch far beyond the courtroom. This ruling is a profound reminder of the expectations we hold for ourselves—and for each other—as dutyholders in design, safety, and construction.

At Fortis & Noble, we specialise in navigating the complex intersection of safety leadership, design assurance, and project risk. This judgment directly impacts these critical areas, and we've distilled its real-world significance for you below.

What the Supreme Court Confirmed: The Core Tenets of the Ruling

The Supreme Court's decision clarified several key legal points, solidifying the proactive stance of the Building Safety Act 2022.

1. Liability Can Now Stretch to 30 Years The Court unequivocally affirmed that the extended 30-year limitation period, introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022 under its amendments to the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA), applies not only to direct DPA claims but also to associated negligence and contribution claims. This retroactive application for defects on dwellings completed before June 28, 2022, represents a significant extension of professional exposure.

• Impact: Dutyholders, particularly those involved in design decisions, can now face legal action decades after a project's completion if the issues relate to fundamental life safety and the fitness for habitation of a dwelling. This demands a radical shift in long-term risk management and documentation.

2. "Voluntary" Remediation Does Not Nullify Responsibility URS Corporation Ltd argued that BDW Trading Ltd (Barratt Redrow) had conducted remedial works on buildings it no longer owned, making these actions "voluntary" and too remote to warrant recovery. The Supreme Court firmly rejected this. The ruling makes it clear that if a party undertakes action to prevent foreseeable harm, mitigate reputational damage, or address an ongoing safety risk, such actions are entirely justifiable.

• Impact: This point reinforces that a dutyholder's responsibility for their work does not diminish merely because another party voluntarily steps in to rectify defects. The original duty of care remains active, and those initially responsible can still be held liable for the costs of such necessary remediation.

3. Developers Are Also Owed a Duty of Care URS further contended that their design duty only extended to homeowners or residents. The Court dismissed this argument, confirming that developers, as clients commissioning the work, can indeed be owed a duty of care under Section 1 of the DPA.

• Impact: This broadens the scope of professional responsibility. It reaffirms that accountability for safe and fit-for-purpose design applies throughout the project chain, not just to the end-user. Principal Designers must ensure their design coordination and advice are robust for all stakeholders.

What This Means for Principal Designers and Consultants

This judgment unequivocally redefines the long-term exposure and accountability inherent in the design process. It crystallises what many experienced professionals within our field have long understood: mere compliance with minimum standards is insufficient. You need demonstrable evidence, clear context, and unwavering leadership in your decision-making.

For Principal Designers, particularly under the stringent requirements of CDM 2015 and the enhanced duties of the Building Safety Act, this means:

• Meticulous Record-Keeping: Instituting systems for structured, timestamped records of all key design decisions, including the rationale behind them.
• Documenting Risk Management: Clearly logging how design risks were identified, thoroughly assessed, effectively escalated, and definitively resolved.
• Transparent Coordination: Capturing evidence of all internal and external coordination activities, including design reviews, workshops, and information exchanges.
• Exercising Professional Judgement: Providing clear documentation of where professional judgement or challenge was exercised, demonstrating proactive risk mitigation rather than simply 'ticking boxes'.

This isn't about generating unnecessary administrative burden. It's about building a robust, defensible "golden thread" of information – being able to demonstrate, five, ten, even thirty years later, why a specific decision was made and that it was reasonable and appropriate at the time, based on the information available.

Accountability Is Now Measurable

This Supreme Court ruling doesn't fundamentally alter the imperative to act responsibly; instead, it reinforces that being proactive, transparent, and thoroughly documented is now the only truly safe and defensible position.

At Fortis & Noble, we've observed firsthand how easily cultural blind spots or fragmented records can escalate into significant legacy risks. The industry now has decisive judicial backing that firmly aligns with what truly good practice has always demanded: clear thinking, traceable action, and accountable leadership.

If you are reviewing your current design assurance processes, assessing historic liability exposure, or seeking to fortify your professional risk profile in light of this critical judgment, we would be glad to support you.

Contact Us:

info@fortisandnoble.com 

0208 0589 9053

#BuildingSafety #DutyOfCare #SupremeCourt #PrincipalDesigner #DefectivePremisesAct #ConstructionLaw #DesignRisk #Accountability #LegalUpdate #InfrastructureLeadership