The Supreme Court’s decision in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 provides much-needed and potentially far-reaching clarity on the scope of consultants’ liability in tort and the operation of limitation in construction disputes.
The ruling underscores the potential for long-tail liability, particularly in legacy cases involving structural defects or fire safety issues such as cladding.
The case concerned two residential towers developed by BDW. URS Corporation was appointed as structural engineer for the original design, but not as the main contractor. Years after completion and sale of the buildings, serious structural defects emerged. BDW undertook remedial works and brought proceedings against URS, alleging negligent design.
Although URS was not involved in the subsequent construction or sale, it retained responsibility for the structural design. The defects were attributed to failures in the original design. URS denied liability, relying in part on limitation and the absence of a direct relationship with the current building owner.
Consultant’s Duty in Tort
The Supreme Court held that professional consultants like URS can owe a duty of care in tort to developers, even if the building has been subsequently sold. The Supreme Court affirmed that such duties are not extinguished by the passing of title – a crucial clarification for legacy design claims. It also found that the duty in tort could coexist with, or be independent of, contractual duties.
In a significant ruling on limitation, the Supreme Court confirmed that time does not begin to run from the date negligent advice is given. Instead, it starts when physical damage occurs, which in this case, was years after the flawed design had been delivered. This interpretation dramatically extends the period during which claims may arise, particularly where latent defects surface long after practical completion.
This judgment has serious implications for consultants, developers and their insurers.
Key takeaways:
The URS v BDW decision underscores the enduring nature of consultants’ liability and redefines the practical operation of limitation in tort. Clients, consultants and insurers alike must review past projects through this new lens, especially in the context of post-Grenfell safety obligations. Risk audits, document preservation and early engagement with insurers should now be central to every firm’s risk strategy.
If you require assistance with construction disputes, or have questions about consultant liability, please contact our Construction Disputes team on +44 204 600 9907 or email info@culbertellis.com.
