Lendlease v AECOM

In November 2023, the UK High Court heard an action brought by Lendlease against AECOM arising from alleged fire-safety defects at the St James’s University Hospital Oncology Centre in Leeds. Lendlease had already been found liable to its client for almost £8 million in remedial costs for a range of defects affecting the hospital’s plant room, including inadequate fire compartmentation and other compliance shortfalls. Seeking to recover a portion of that loss — approximately £3 million — Lendlease sued Aecom, the engineering consultant responsible for elements of the design and fire-safety engineering. A judge dismissed the claim, largely due to limitation period issues — the defects occurred outside the window in which Aecom could be held liable under contract — but the case illustrates real-world legal liability claims against fire-safety consultancies and engineers.
Background

• The dispute centres on the plant room of the St James’s University Hospital Oncology Centre, a 13-storey healthcare facility built under a private finance initiative (PFI) and completed in 2007. In subsequent litigation, Lendlease was held responsible for £5,048,534.39 in damages for nine defects (plus over £2.9 million in a prior settlement) as part of wider remediation and defect costs.
• Lendlease’s claim against Aecom — structured as a separate action to recover part of its own loss — focused on eight alleged design and fire-safety failures, including:
• Lack of fire compartmentation in the plant room;
• Omission of fire dampers where required;
• Inadequate fire stopping zones; and
• Issues affecting compliance with NHS fire-safety standards and building regulations.

Court DecisionThe High Court (Justice Stephen Eyre) dismissed Lendlease’s claim against Aecom on limitation grounds:

• Aecom argued that any breach of duty must have occurred within 12 years of the cause of action — meaning the defect work was too old (completed well before the main contract date triggering liability).
• Because the plant room work dated from 2006–2007, it fell outside the statutory limitation period for bringing the claim in 2019 when Lendlease issued proceedings.
• The judge made clear that had the claim been brought within time, Aecom likely would have been found liable for some of the alleged defects; but the expiry of the statutory window precluded recovery on that basis.

Despite the dismissal, the case demonstrated how professional designers and fire-safety consultants can be the target of high-value liability claims by contractors seeking to pass on their own losses arising from fire-safety and building compliance failures.
Why It MattersProfessional Liability ExposureThis case shows that:

• Main contractors and developers may pursue fire-safety consultants and engineers for alleged design/inspection failings that result in substantial remedial costs.
• Even unsuccessful claims can generate multi-million-pound damages exposures and legal risk for consultancies and engineers operating in high-risk sectors (health, residential, tall buildings).

Significance for Building Safety

• It highlights that disputes about fire compartmentation, compliance with fire safety codes, and consultant duties are real and litigated — not just theoretical.
• It also warns of limitations issues (time bars), reinforcing the value of robust data, clear records, and early risk assessment documentation for professionals in the fire-safety space. 

NoteWhile this claim did not result in an award against the consultant, it nonetheless constitutes a real, quantified legal action over fire-safety defects — and it illustrates liability risk for fire-safety consultancies.