---
title: "Can Developers Recover Remediation Costs from Negligent Engineers After Selling the Building?"
url: https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/can-developers-recover-remediation-costs-from-negligent-engineers-after-selling-the-building/
date: 2026-08-14
modified: 2026-08-14
author: "pncs"
description: "The Supreme Court’s decision in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 addresses whether developers can recover remediation costs from negligent design professionals after selling affected buildings. This article examines the Court’s findings on voluntary expenditure, the Building Safety Act 2022, the Defective Premises Act 1972 and contribution claims."
categories:
  - "Building Safety"
  - "Case study"
  - "Cases"
  - "Construction Negligence"
  - "professional negligence"
  - "Professional Negligence Cases"
  - "Property Law"
  - "Supreme Court"
tags:
  - "building defects"
  - "Building Safety"
  - "construction negligence"
  - "Defective Premises Act 1972"
  - "Developer Claims"
  - "Engineer Negligence"
  - "Professional negligence"
  - "Structural Defects"
image: https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Can-Developers-Recover-Remediation-Costs-from-Negligent-Engineers-After-Selling-the-Building-1024x559.png
word_count: 2281
---

# Can Developers Recover Remediation Costs from Negligent Engineers After Selling the Building?

If you are a property developer, freeholder or management company who has paid millions of pounds to fix dangerous structural defects in a building you no longer own, you may have been told that your money is lost forever. You may have been advised that because you sold the development before the defects were discovered, and because no homeowner ever sued you, your claim against the negligent engineer or architect is hopeless. The Supreme Court has now ruled that this advice is wrong. In [URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2023-0110), a seven-Justice panel unanimously held that a developer can recover the full cost of remedial works from a negligent design consultant even where the developer had no proprietary interest in the building, no legal obligation to carry out the repairs, and faced no claim from any third party. It was also the first time the Supreme Court had considered either the [Building Safety Act 2022](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/contents) or the [Defective Premises Act 1972](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35/contents), making this the most significant professional negligence decision of 2025 for anyone involved in building safety remediation.

### Want legal advice on the merits of your case?
Your legal enquiry goes immediately to our PN litigation team in Middle Temple, London. We can't take on low value cases or give free legal advice - our minimum fee is £1750 +VAT for a conference with a solicitor and barrister. Call us on +442071830529.

[Check My Case Now ✔](https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/litigation-case-assessment-form/)

## Defects Discovered After Sale

BDW Trading Ltd is one of the UK's largest residential developers, operating under the [Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2023-0110) brands. In connection with two high-rise residential developments known as Capital East and Freemens Meadow, BDW appointed URS Corporation Ltd, an international engineering consultancy, to provide [structural design services under its appointment contracts](https://www.supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2023_0110_press_summary_804d70449b.pdf).

In 2019, following investigations prompted by the [Grenfell Tower tragedy](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/contents), BDW reviewed its existing stock and discovered serious structural design defects in both developments, attributable to URS's negligent design work. By the time the defects were found, however, BDW no longer had any [proprietary interest in either development](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2023-0110): the flats had been sold to residential purchasers on long leases, the freeholds had passed to management companies, and BDW had received full value at the time of sale. No claims had been made against BDW by any owner or occupier, and on the assumed facts any cause of action the owners might once have had was [time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/contents).

Despite having no legal obligation to do so, BDW carried out extensive remedial works to both developments in 2020 and 2021, then brought a claim against URS to recover the cost. This is precisely the scenario our [30-year limitation window](https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/building-safety-act-the-30-year-limitation-window/) guide addresses: buildings once thought to be outside any remedy are, under the [Building Safety Act 2022](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/section/135), very much back in scope.

## Negligence, the Defective Premises Act and Contribution

BDW's claim, issued in March 2020, was originally pleaded in the [tort of negligence](https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/professional-negligence-claims/) only, alleging that URS had failed to exercise reasonable skill and care in its design work. After the [Building Safety Act 2022](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/contents) came into force, BDW successfully applied to amend its claim to add two further causes of action.

First, it alleged breach of [section 1(1)(a) of the Defective Premises Act 1972](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35/section/1), which imposes a duty on those who carry out work in connection with the provision of a dwelling to see that the work is done in a workmanlike or professional manner, with proper materials, so that the dwelling is fit for habitation when completed. Second, BDW brought a claim for contribution under the [Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/47/contents), on the basis that both BDW and URS were liable to the homeowners for the same damage.

## URS's Four Grounds of Appeal

URS resisted the claim at every level, ultimately raising four distinct grounds before the Supreme Court, with Sir James Eadie KC and Jason Pobjoy KC intervening on behalf of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on the limitation issue.

### The "Voluntariness Principle"

URS argued that BDW's losses were irrecoverable because they were "voluntarily incurred." BDW had no proprietary interest in the buildings, no enforceable legal obligation to carry out the repairs, and no claims from third parties, so URS contended that [English law recognises a bright-line principle](https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2023_0110_judgment_updated_1f47885f41.pdf) that loss incurred without legal compulsion falls outside the scope of a defendant's duty of care and/or is too remote. URS relied on four authorities: *Admiralty Commissioners v SS Amerika*, *Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Hall Russell & Co Ltd* (The Esso Bernicia), *Anglian Water Services Ltd v Crawshaw Robbins & Co Ltd*, and *Hambro Life Assurance plc v White Young & Partners*.

### The Building Safety Act 2022

URS argued that [section 135 of the Building Safety Act 2022](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/section/135), which retrospectively extended the limitation period for accrued claims under section 1 DPA from six years to 30 years, could not assist BDW's claims in negligence or under the [Contribution Act](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/47/contents). URS maintained that the extended period applied only to direct DPA claims, not to onward claims merely dependent on the DPA time limit.

### The Defective Premises Act 1972

URS contended that the duty under [section 1(1)(a) DPA](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35/section/1) was not owed to commercial developers, arguing the Act was intended for consumer protection only and that a developer who itself owed duties under the [1972 Act](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35/contents) could not simultaneously be owed a duty by its own design consultant.

### Contribution Claims

URS argued that BDW could not bring a claim under the [Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/47/contents) because no third party had ever asserted a claim against BDW, let alone obtained judgment or settlement, and that a right to contribution does not arise until [the claimant's liability to a third party](https://www.supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2023_0110_press_summary_804d70449b.pdf) has been established.

## The Supreme Court's Reasoning: A Unanimous Victory for BDW

On 21 May 2025, the seven-member panel unanimously [dismissed URS's appeal on all four grounds](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2023-0110). Lord Hamblen and Lord Burrows gave the lead judgment on Grounds 1 to 3, with Lords Lloyd-Jones, Briggs, Sales and Richards agreeing; Lord Leggatt gave a separate concurring judgment on Grounds 1 to 3 and the lead judgment on Ground 4, with which every other Justice agreed.

### No "Voluntariness Principle" in Law (Ground 1)

The Court rejected URS's central argument that a free-standing "voluntariness principle" renders loss irrecoverable as a matter of law. Examining each of the four authorities URS relied on, the Justices held that in every instance the loss was irrecoverable for other reasons chiefly that it was pure economic loss for which no duty of care was owed, or because the loss was too remote on the specific facts not because of any general rule about voluntary expenditure.

Applying the [scope-of-duty framework from Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20](https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/the-impact-of-manchester-building-society-v-grant-thornton-on-the-law-of-professional-negligence/), the Court held that the very purpose of URS's appointment was to guard against the type of loss BDW in fact suffered: defective buildings requiring repair. The Justices went further, observing that "voluntariness" is most naturally relevant to legal causation and mitigation fact-specific questions for trial, not a hard-edged rule of law and that BDW's decision to repair was strongly arguable not to have been voluntary at all, given the risk of injury or death to occupiers and BDW's compelling commercial and reputational reasons to act. The Court also declined to decide whether to overrule [Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber & Partners [1983] 2 AC 1](https://www.iclr.co.uk/), leaving that question for a future case.

### Section 135 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (Ground 2)

The Court rejected URS's argument that [section 135 BSA](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/section/135) could not assist BDW's negligence and contribution claims. The wording of section 135(3), which refers to "an action by virtue of" section 1 DPA, is not limited to actions brought "under" section 1, so the extended limitation period applies to claims dependent on the DPA time limit even where they are not themselves DPA claims. Any other conclusion, the Court held, would undermine the central purpose of the [Building Safety Act 2022](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/contents): ensuring those responsible for historic building safety defects are held to account.

### Developers Are Owed Duties Under the DPA (Ground 3)

The Court unanimously rejected the argument that commercial developers fall outside [section 1(1)(a) DPA](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35/section/1). The duty is owed to "the person who orders the work," language wide enough to cover a developer who orders the work even without a continuing proprietary interest, and there is no inconsistency in a developer both owing duties under the [1972 Act](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35/contents) to subsequent purchasers and being owed duties by consultants further down the contractual chain.

### Contribution Claims Do Not Require a Third-Party Judgment (Ground 4)

Lord Leggatt held that a right to contribution under the [Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/47/contents) arises once two conditions are met: damage has been suffered by a third party for which both parties are liable, and the claimant has paid, or been ordered or agreed to pay, compensation for that damage. The Court rejected both URS's position (that a judgment, admission or settlement was required) and BDW's more expansive position (that the right arises as soon as a third party suffers damage). Payment "in kind" — such as carrying out remedial works — is sufficient, provided it is capable of monetary valuation, which BDW's repairs were.

## Practical Implications for Developers, Freeholders and Management Companies

First, you can recover [remediation costs from a negligent design professional](https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/architect-negligence/) even if you no longer own the building. The rejection of the "voluntariness principle" means developers who act responsibly by carrying out remedial works are not automatically barred from recovering those costs.

Second, the [Building Safety Act 2022](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/contents) has real teeth: its retrospective extension of limitation periods under [section 135](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/section/135) applies to negligence and contribution claims dependent on the DPA limitation period, not only direct DPA claims. Our separate guide on the [30-year limitation window](https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/building-safety-act-the-30-year-limitation-window/) explains how this retrospective extension works in detail.

Third, developers have a direct cause of action under the [Defective Premises Act 1972](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35/contents) against designers and contractors, strengthening the position of developers pursuing remediation costs from those responsible.

Fourth, [contribution claims](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/47/contents) can be brought even where no third party has ever sued you, provided you have made a payment including in kind for damage that both you and another party are liable for.

## Why Instruct Our Professional Negligence Solicitors?

Claims arising from negligent design or engineering work require careful analysis of both the underlying defect and the professional services provided by the engineer, architect or consultant responsible. Establishing whether a design professional fell below the required standard of skill and care, whether that failure falls within the [scope of their duty](https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/the-impact-of-manchester-building-society-v-grant-thornton-on-the-law-of-professional-negligence/), and whether you have a valid route to recovery under negligence, the [Defective Premises Act 1972](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35/contents), or a [contribution claim](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/47/contents), often requires a detailed review of the original appointment, design records, correspondence, and the remedial works carried out.

Our[ professional negligence solicitors](https://lexlaw.co.uk/our-people/christopher-snell/) have experience assessing complex legal matters to identify potential breaches of duty, quantify the resulting loss, and develop a clear strategy for pursuing recovery. [We take a thorough](https://lexlaw.co.uk/andrew-young/), evidence-led approach to each case, [helping clients ](https://lexlaw.co.uk/legal-news/)understand whether they may have a [viable claim](https://lexlaw.co.uk/practice-areas/) and the legal and financial considerations involved in pursuing it.

### Want legal advice on the merits of your case?
Your legal enquiry goes immediately to our PN litigation team in Middle Temple, London. We can't take on low value cases or give free legal advice - our minimum fee is £1750 +VAT for a conference with a solicitor and barrister. Call us on +442071830529.

[Check My Case Now ✔](https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/litigation-case-assessment-form/)

### Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's)

Does this case mean any voluntary payment is recoverable from a negligent professional?
No. The Supreme Court did not create a general rule that all voluntary payments are recoverable — it rejected a bright-line “voluntariness principle” that would bar recovery as a matter of law. Whether a particular payment is recoverable still depends on whether the loss falls within the [scope of the defendant’s duty](https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/the-impact-of-manchester-building-society-v-grant-thornton-on-the-law-of-professional-negligence/) and whether the claimant’s conduct was reasonable; causation and mitigation remain fact-specific issues for trial.

I sold my development years ago. Can I still claim against the engineer?
Possibly. The [Building Safety Act 2022](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/contents) retrospectively extends the limitation period for accrued claims under the [Defective Premises Act 1972](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35/contents) from six years to 30 years, and this extension also applies to dependent claims in negligence and contribution. If your claim was previously time-barred, it may now be alive see our [limitation period guidance](https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/limitation-period-in-professional-negligence-claims/) and seek urgent legal advice, as limitation remains a complex area.

What if no homeowner or tenant has ever sued me?
That does not prevent a claim. The Supreme Court held that a [contribution claim under the 1978 Act](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/47/contents) does not require a prior judgment, settlement, or even an asserted claim by a third party. If you have carried out remedial works constituting a payment in kind, and both you and the design professional are liable for the same damage, you can seek contribution.

Does this case only apply to structural engineers?
No. The principles apply to all design professionals, including [architects](https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/riba-property-expert-no-win-no-fee-advice-claims/), structural engineers, M&E engineers and cladding consultants. The scope-of-duty analysis and the Court’s reasoning on the [DPA](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/35/contents) and contribution claims are not limited to structural design.

What is the “scope of duty” test?
Refined by the Supreme Court in [Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20](https://professionalnegligenceclaimsolicitors.co.uk/the-impact-of-manchester-building-society-v-grant-thornton-on-the-law-of-professional-negligence/), the test asks what risks of harm the defendant’s duty was meant to guard against, and whether there is a sufficient nexus between the loss claimed and that duty. In URS v BDW, the very purpose of URS’s appointment was to prevent the type of structural defects that occurred, so the [remediation costs fell within the scope of its duty](https://www.supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2023_0110_press_summary_804d70449b.pdf).