URS v BDW - Some building safety questions answered

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal issued a judgment on two related appeals. The decision will have a significant impact on many building safety defects cases.

Together with colleagues in our Construction, Engineering & Procurement Team, I have prepared a case analysis which provides details of the questions the court had to consider, and the answers it gave together with our assessment of the judgment.

Standing back, I provide a few wider comments in this post.

• This decision is relevant to the landmark Building Safety Act 2022 ("BSA"). The BSA places heavy reliance on the Defective Premises Act 1972 ("DPA"). While the BSA has given rise to many new remedies and statutory reforms, certain key parts of the legislation fall back on the DPA, which received an unprecedented retroactive limitation extension (through the BSA) – meaning that claims that were time-barred can now be pursued through the courts, with an increase in the limitation period from six years to thirty years.
• Clearly, the DPA will receive more judicial attention than in the past – and URS v BDW is an early example: in fact, it has given us the first Court of Appeal decision relating to claims under the DPA since the enactment of the BSA 15 months ago.
• As seen in this case, the renewed emphasis on the DPA can cut across existing disputes and radically alter them.
• The courts are used to handing down judgments that affect high profile government priorities. They will apply the BSA and DPA in accordance with established principles of statutory interpretation and, as the courts issue their decisions, the government's explanatory notes will inevitably take a backseat.

 All that said, although URS v BDW answers some important questions, others remain for another day