Developers can now pursue negligent designers and contractors for historic building safety failings after a landmark Supreme Court ruling.

In a major win for Barratt Developments subsidiary BDW Trading, the court dismissed an appeal by structural engineer URS and backed developers’ rights to recover costs even for defects in buildings they no longer own.

The judgment provides long-awaited clarity on how the Building Safety Act’s extended 30-year limitation period applies and will likely trigger a wave of fresh claims from developers who’ve footed the bill for safety remediation since Grenfell.

The case stems from the discovery in late 2019 of serious structural failings at Citiscape, a Barratt high-rise in Croydon, designed by a predecessor to URS. Cracking in the structural slab revealed that the building was at risk of collapse, forcing its evacuation and triggering a major repair operation.

The shock prompted BDW to launch a wider review of projects designed by URS. The review uncovered further major defects at Capital East in London and Freemens Meadow in Leicester. Remedial works followed, and BDW launched proceedings on 6 March 2020 to recover the costs.

Although BDW no longer owned the buildings, today’s ruling confirms it can still seek compensation. The Supreme Court found that developers that fix unsafe buildings should not be penalised, even if they had no legal obligation to do so or had already sold the properties.

The case tested key issues around the new 30-year limitation period introduced by the Building Safety Act. The court ruled that this extended time limit applies not only to direct claims under the Defective Premises Act but also to related negligence and contribution claims.

The justices also confirmed that:

• Developers can claim losses for voluntary repairs if the work was done to avoid safety risks

• A contribution claim can proceed even if no court judgment or settlement has yet occurred

Law firm Osborne Clarke, acting for BDW, said the ruling cleared the path for many similar legacy defect claims across the sector.

Rob Horne, head of construction disputes at Osborne Clarke, said: “Ultimately, the aim of the BSA was to ensure that safety failures are properly addressed and that those responsible bear the costs.

“This case furthers that aim by ensuring that developers have a clearer path to recover funds from designers and constructors who designed and built unsafe buildings.”

A spokesman for Barratt Redrow said: “We are pleased that in this landmark case, the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal on all grounds and clarified the responsibility of wider companies for remediating defects in developments they were involved in building.

“Whether remediation is required because of defects in design, supply of inappropriate products or workmanship issues, it is vital that the companies who played a part step up and put things right, as we have done with the developments in this case.”

URS is now owned by AECOM, following a takeover in 2014.