Barratt Redrow v URS Corporation Ltd (2025)

In a landmark 2025 decision, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that Barratt Redrow plc — one of the UK’s largest housebuilders (trading under names such as Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes) — can proceed with a negligence/cost recovery claim against its former structural engineer, URS Corporation Ltd (now part of Aecom), for the costs of remedial works to correct historic structural and safety defects at two high-rise residential developments.
The ruling is widely regarded as a major development in building safety law because it clarifies how liability and cost recovery mechanisms operate following changes introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022 and addresses long-running industry challenges about who ultimately pays for remediation works uncovered during post-Grenfell safety reviews.
Background

• Barratt Redrow identified design defects in two multi-storey residential developments originally built between 2005 and 2012.
• These defects were discovered when Barratt Redrow was no longer the owner of the buildings but during post-Grenfell safety reviews in 2019.
• Concerned about safety, the company voluntarily carried out remediation work between 2020 and 2021 at its own cost.
• Barratt Redrow then sued URS Corporation Ltd, arguing that URS’s structural design services had been negligent and that URS should reimburse the remediation costs Barratt had incurred.

Legal Issues Decided1. Recoverability of “Voluntary” CostsURS argued that Barratt’s remedial works were voluntarily undertaken — not mandated by any third-party lawsuit — and that such costs should therefore be unrecoverable.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, confirming that such costs can be recoverable if they arise from a breach of duty of care by the consultant and are not too remote.
2. Retrospective Limitation ExtensionsThe Building Safety Act 2022 (section 135) extended the limitation period for building defect claims from six to 30 years. The Supreme Court held that this extension applies retrospectively and allows claims for remedial costs and related remedies (including contribution claims under the Civil Liability Act 1978) even where the developer no longer owns the building and the original limitation period had expired.
3. Liability Despite No Ongoing Ownership or Third-Party ClaimThe court clarified that a developer does not need to still own the property, nor to have been sued by a third party, to try to recover remediation costs from a negligent designer. This significantly broadens the scope of potential liability for consultants and engineers involved in historic projects.

Financial and Industry Impact

• Barratt Redrow’s claim has yet to go to trial, meaning no final damages amount has yet been determined — but the Supreme Court’s decision removes major legal barriers and allows the claim to proceed. Lawyers predict that claims could run into tens of millions of pounds, given the scale of remediation costs seen in the industry post-Grenfell.

The judgment is expected to unlock similar claims by other developers against designers, contractors, and specialist consultants — a major shift from the pre-2022 legal landscape where historic defect claims were often time-barred.
Industry commentary emphasises that this ruling extends potential liability for consultants, contractors, and insurers well into projects completed up to 30 years ago, affecting reserves, risk management, and professional indemnity insurance strategies.

Why This MattersThis case is widely seen in the construction and legal communities as a pivotal confirmation of the Building Safety Act 2022’s real, retrospective effect on remediation liability. Developers who voluntarily remediate safety defects now have a legal pathway to recover costs from parties responsible for original design or works, even when traditional limitation periods have expired.
For consultants and contractors, the decision signals an era of extended historical liability exposure for building safety defects — particularly where structural design or safety-critical information was provided.