The Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) continues to redefine the liability landscape for residential and mixed-use development in England and provide an increasingly forceful litigation framework.
Over the past two years, the courts have adopted a distinctly purposive interpretation of the Act, consistently widening the routes by which claimants can recover the costs of remediating historic defects. In addition to the extended limitation periods and enhanced regulatory powers granted by the BSA, recent case law demonstrates a clear judicial trend towards extending liability across the whole development chain and deep into associated corporate structures.
Key Recent Cases
381 Southwark Park Road RTM Co Ltd & ors v Click St Andrews Ltd & anor (TCC, 2024)
In 381 Southwark Park Road the first Building Liability Order (BLO) was granted under section 13. The High Court imposed joint and several liability on an associated parent company where the original development vehicle was a thinly capitalised special purpose vehicle (SPV).
The judgment makes clear that historic corporate structuring offers limited protection where it is just and equitable to extend the scope of liability to entities with real control and financial substance – an approach which has since been re-emphasised in Triathlon.
BLOs operate via statutory association rather than traditional veil piercing, enabling liability to be extended across group structures. This decision signals the Court’s readiness to deploy BLOs to prevent asset structuring from frustrating remediation cost recovery, and establishes a practical template for claimants seeking to reach solvent group companies in circumstances where those companies might have thought themselves ring-fenced from any claims.
URS Corp Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] (21 May 2025)
The Supreme Court’s decision in URS v BDW is now the leading authority on the interaction between the BSA, the Defective Premises Act 1972, and contribution claims.
The Court confirmed that where a developer undertakes remedial works to address serious fire or structural defects, those costs are not irrecoverable merely because the developer was not under an immediate legal compulsion to act. While the “reasonableness” of such remedial works is relevant, the Court indicated that public and reputational interests would factor into any assessment. It even went so far as to suggest that in such cases, remedial works are not entirely “voluntary”.
Perhaps more importantly, the judgment confirmed the breadth of section 135, allowing the Act’s extended retrospective limitation periods to support related contribution and negligence claims. The practical effect is that parties involved in projects completed decades ago may now face revived liability with real financial consequences, regardless of whether the claimant was under and enforceable legal obligation to remedy the defects in question.
Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership [2025] EWCA Civ 846
If URS expanded recovery rights horizontally across the professional team, Triathlon Homes strengthened the vertical hierarchy of responsibility.
In Triathlon, the courts have confirmed that remediation contribution orders (RCOs) should be used robustly to ensure that developers and associated landlords bear the primary financial burden of making buildings safe:
- The fact that remediation costs had initially been met through the Building Safety Fund did not prevent the claimant from recovering these privately; and
- “Associated Companies” was construed broadly for the purposes of RCOs so as to include any associated group entities, including associates acquired after the fact, or entities having had no involvement in the relevant development.
The significance of Triathlon further lies in its endorsement of a broad “just and equitable” discretion which focuses on developer primacy, repayment of public funds, means, and overall fairness – though there is no presumption that any wealthy associate should pay; the nature, degree and duration of association can still limit or defeat an RCO.
How Our Team Can Support You
The latest case law confirms that courts are increasingly willing to look beyond corporate form to actual control and benefit when imposing liability under the BSA. In this environment, legal risk management is now a strategic necessity.
Our construction law team provide end-to-end advice—from structuring, procurement and compliance to remediation strategy, dispute resolution, and regulator engagement. We also draft, review, and negotiate construction contracts on existing projects which allocate risk clearly, and maximise your recovery options in the event of any failure by your professional team to comply with their own obligations under the BSA.
If you think these developments may affect you, please do not hesitate to contact our team.
