Disputes Yearbook 2025:
Construction disputes

Landmark Supreme Court judgment on building safety and contribution claims

In the long-anticipated judgment of URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court confirmed the expansive scope of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) and the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA), as well as the basis on which a party can make contribution claims under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (CLCA). 

The Supreme Court's key findings include the following:

1. There is no "voluntariness principle" that operates as a rule of law rendering voluntarily incurred losses automatically too remote to be recoverable in negligence. Specifically, the Supreme Court found that a developer's decision to remediate structural defects (discovered during investigations it carried out following the Grenfell Tower fire) was not truly voluntary due to the existence of legal/contractual liability to incur the cost of repairs, reputational risk, and general public interest.
2. The retrospective 30-year limitation period introduced by s.135 BSA applies to claims made directly under as well as by virtue of s.1 DPA, including in negligence and for contribution.
3. A developer can be owed a duty under s.1(1)(a) DPA, while also owing a duty to homeowners. 
4. Undertaking remedial works would satisfy the requirement of having "paid" (or been ordered or agreed to pay) compensation for the purpose of the CLCA, allowing a developer to seek contribution from other parties who are or could be liable for the same damage. A contribution claim does not require the amount of compensation to be established by a judgment, admission or settlement agreement. The limitation period for contribution claims commences when remediation works are carried out. 

This judgment is likely to be welcomed by developers seeking to recover the costs of remediating buildings from their contractors and consultants in similar circumstances. Conversely, contractors and consultants are expected to reassess their risk exposure, particularly in relation to defects arising from workmanship which typically fall outside the scope of professional indemnity insurance cover.

For more information, please see our blog post on the case. 

Other building/fire safety cases demonstrating the practical application of the BSA 

In addition to URS v BDW, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) handed down important decisions regarding Building Liability Orders and Information Orders. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal (CA) and First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) have provided further useful guidance on Remediation Contribution Orders and Remediation Orders. 

Building Liability Orders

The TCC made its first Building Liability Order (BLO) in 381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Ltd v Click St Andrews Ltd [2024] EWHC 3179 (TCC) (the judgment became available at the end of 2024). The BLO was sought against a holding company of the original developer (in liquidation) on the basis that the former was an "associated company" as defined by s.131 BSA. Whilst a claim under the DPA was not available in this case, the judge concluded that there was a "relevant liability" for the purpose of s.130 BSA, and it would be "just and equitable" to make an order against the holding company.

Notably, the holding company and original developer were held to be "associates" despite there being another company between them in the corporate structure. The holding company owned 100% of the shares in a subsidiary that owned the developer and was therefore held to have the ability to control the affairs of the latter. The judge also found that it was the original developer’s solvency which was relevant to satisfying the "just and equitable" consideration under s.130 BSA, rather than the associated parent company’s resources.

Information Orders 

BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 434 (TCC) was the first TCC case to consider an application for Information Orders (IOs), which were sought by a developer against a contractor and its related companies. The contractor had previously been engaged on five developments in which fire safety and structural defects were found. An adjudicator had ruled in the developer's favour on one of the developments for which the contractor had fully paid, while disputes over the remaining four were ongoing. The developer sought IOs to support its BLO application against companies related to the contractor, due to concerns about the latter's ability to meet its liabilities. 

The TCC refused the developer's application on several grounds. Among others, the TCC held that, unlike BLOs, an IO can be made only against the party with the relevant liability under the BSA and where the court is satisfied that such party is subject to a relevant liability. No order could be made against the contractor's associated group companies because they were not the parties with the relevant liability. The contractor was also not subject to a relevant liability as its liability in relation to one of the developments had already been discharged, and its liability in relation to the remaining four developments had not yet been established. The TCC also noted that it would not support requests for commercially intrusive information without sufficient justification. 

It has been widely noted that this decision is inconsistent with the government's explanatory notes on the BSA that envisage an IO being made against an associated company. This decision suggests that, in practice, IOs will be available on much narrower grounds, potentially impacting claimants' applications for BLOs. 

Remediation Contribution Orders and Remediation Orders

Several key decisions in relation to RCOs were handed down by the FTT and CA in 2025. 

In Vista Tower, Stevenage SG1 1AR (CAM/26UH/HYI/2023/0003), the FTT considered multiple issues, including the definition of a "relevant defect" and thresholds for determining a "building safety risk" for the purpose of s.120 BSA. The tribunal also carried out a forensic analysis of each of the 96 respondents to determine whether it was "just and equitable" to make an order in each case. In doing so, it clarified that there was no automatic presumption that any associated company must be made liable, particularly where they were associated only by common directorship. Regard would be had to "additional linking factors" to justify making an RCO. 

In Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership [2025] EWCA Civ 846 and Adriatic Land 5 Limited v Long Leaseholders of Hippersley Point and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] EWCA Civ 856, the CA confirmed that an RCO could be made in respect of costs incurred before the relevant provisions of the BSA took effect, and dismissed an appeal against some of the first RCOs to have been made under the BSA. In November 2025, permission to appeal Triathlon Homes was granted in part, with the Supreme Court due to consider whether RCOs can extend to pre-BSA costs. For more information on the CA decisions, please see our blog post. 

In relation to ROs, the FTT has continued to hear applications, providing further guidance on its general approach when exercising its discretion to grant such remedy. Cases such as The Central, 163-165 Iverson Road, London, NW6 2RB (LON/00AG/BSA/2024/0008) show the FTT continuing to take a consumer-protective approach, requiring landlords to promptly remedy defective buildings. For more information on 2025 FTT cases relating to ROs (and RCOs), a more detailed briefing note can be obtained here. 

Continued release of 2024 JCT forms including a new Target Cost Contract 

The Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) continued to release new forms in 2025. Notably, on 25 June 2025 the JCT released its new Target Cost Contract 2024 family of contracts (TCC 2024), including a main contract, sub-contract and guides. TCC 2024 is designed for target cost and difference sharing arrangements. In line with other 2024 JCT forms, TCC 2024 reflects several recent developments in construction law, including the following:

• The Supreme Court's decision in Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Co Ltd [2021] UKSC 29 in response to which TCC 2024 expressly provides for the employer's right to claim delay liquidated damages where the contractor's employment is terminated before practical completion. 
• New s.2A DPA, which was introduced by BSA 2022 and extended the scope of the DPA to apply not only to the provision of a dwelling, but also to work carried out in relation to an existing dwelling. TCC 2024 provides that, in both circumstances, the contractor's contractual duty to use reasonable skill and care is subject to its liability under the DPA to ensure that a dwelling is fit for habitation. 

TCC 2024 also reflects other drafting changes incorporated into the main 2024 JCT forms, including those which place more onerous requirements on the employer when assessing a contractor's delay claim. In particular, TCC 2024 sets a time limit of 14 days for the employer to require the contractor to provide further information in support of its delay claim (there was no time limit in the equivalent provisions under the 2016 editions). Further, the employer has only eight weeks to notify the contractor of its decision regarding a delay claim (the equivalent provisions of the 2016 editions allowed for 12 weeks). 

NEC conflict avoidance clauses 

In March 2025, the NEC published a new practice note, providing guidance on the conflict avoidance clauses and process for NEC4 contracts. These clauses set out a procedure for resolving disputes at an early stage by using a Conflict Avoidance Panel (CAP). The practice note includes different versions, depending on whether the contract uses dispute resolution Option W1 (where the contract is not subject to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA)) or Option W2 (where the contract is subject to the HGCRA). The clauses can be used in any of the main NEC4 forms of contract or sub-contract.

The clauses provide a fast-track procedure for the appointment of and referral of a disagreement to the CAP, and a subsequent documents-based process for the CAP to address the disagreement. The outcome is a reasoned "recommendation" by the CAP, which becomes legally binding only if the parties are satisfied with it and it is implemented. If a party does not accept the CAP's recommendation:

• Where Option W1 applies to the underlying contract, the dispute must be referred to senior representatives within two weeks of receiving the recommendation.
• Where Option W2 applies, the parties can agree to refer a dispute over the CAP's recommendation to senior representatives.

The release of this practice note reflects the broader dispute avoidance trend in the construction industry, and the ongoing focus on early intervention and preventing issues from escalating into formal disputes.