Last summer, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal defined the scope of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) through two landmark cases, alongside further judicial guidance relating to claims under The Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA).
It should be noted that developments are ongoing in the case of Triathlon Homes v Stratford Village Development Partnership, as on 6 November 2025 the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal in part.
Triathlon and URS
In the case of Triathlon, the Court clarified that liability under the BSA, particularly through remediation contribution orders (RCOs), can be applied retrospectively and apply to successor entities – even if they were not themselves at fault.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the original ruling that developers and their corporate groups remain financially responsible for historic safety issues, rather than leaseholders and housing providers that would otherwise bear the costs burden for remediating these defects.
In the case of URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd (where the developer sought to recover costs of defect rectification it had “voluntarily” carried out from its design consultant) the Supreme Court reinforced this position and went one step further: confirming that property developers (not just property owners) are parties who are owed a duty under the DPA. Accordingly, developers who are acutely exposed to the costs of remediating building defects and are liable under the DPA, can also benefit from the 30-year extended limitation periods for DPA claims to pursue recoveries from their supply chain members.
These cases mark a shift towards greater accountability across the development sector, affecting not only developers, but also permitting them to recover under the same principles down the supply chain from consultants, contractors and manufacturers.
Remedies available
In light of these cases, what are the remedies available to deal with historical defects?
1. Remediation orders
Under section 123 of the BSA, an “interested person”, such as a leaseholder, can apply to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) for a remediation order. This compels a “relevant landlord” to remedy specific building safety defects, regardless of whether that landlord was responsible for causing them.
This powerful tool means that landlords may be held liable for remediation even if they had no direct involvement in the original construction or design of the building. Also, the process at the FTT is fairly straightforward and relatively inexpensive, which will assist leaseholders in bringing claims.
2. Remediation contribution orders
Under section 124 of the BSA, an interested person may also apply to the FTT for a remediation contribution order (RCO). This compels a specified party, such as a landlord, developer, or associated entity, to contribute to the costs of remedying relevant defects.
The Court in the Triathlon case highlighted the following points in relation to RCOs:
- developers and associated companies can be targeted directly, even as the first defendant ahead of landlords, and
- RCOs can apply retrospectively, covering works completed before the BSA was introduced on 28 June 2022, meaning many historic defects are now within scope.
3. Building liability orders
Section 130 of the BSA introduces building liability orders (BLOs), allowing courts to pierce the “corporate veil” – meaning liability is extended to other companies in the company group. This was primarily intended where developers have used special purpose companies that have been subsequently dissolved – this was often driven by tax reasons but also would otherwise avoid liability for defects.
These three remedies can overlap to some extent – a BLO can be used in conjunction with other remedies to extend liability to associated companies within the same corporate group, ensuring that claimants are not left without recourse due to corporate structuring.
A more in-depth discussion surrounding RCOs and BLOs, particularly in the landscape of insolvency, can be found here: The Building Safety Act 2022 and the corporate veil in an insolvency context.
4. The Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA)
Historically, claims under the DPA were rare and designed to deal with the poor condition of slum housing stock post-WW2. Claims were pursued based on whether dwellings were “fit for habitation”, rather than compensating for full contractual expectations. This limited the scope of recoverable damages, made the Act less attractive for claimants and the statute saw limited use with relatively little case law about the DPA. Where parties such as developers had in-time contractual claims available to them, they did not need to rely on the DPA and available claims were also limited by the previous six-year limitation period, running from the date of completion of the dwellings.
The BSA changed the landscape by extending limitation periods to:
- 30 years retrospectively for work completed before 28 June 2022, and
- 15 years prospectively for work completed after that date.
The extended limitation periods significantly expand potential claims that would previously have been time barred, reviving liability for developers, contractors and professionals long after completion.
In recent case law, the courts have followed earlier decisions (e.g. Shepherd v Harrison [2011] EWHC 1811 (TCC)), when deciding that there is no distinction to be drawn between the approach to damages for breach of contract under latent insurance policies or under the DPA; see:
- Vainker v Marbank Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 667 (TCC); and
- Wilson v HB (SWA) Ltd [2025] EWHC 1315 (TCC).
In Vainker v Marbank, the Court decided that damages under section 1 of the DPA are not limited to the minimum works necessary to make the dwelling “fit for habitation”. Instead, the measure of damages should reflect the cost of putting the property into the condition it would have been in had the work been carried out in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Wilson v HB expressly highlighted the point, which had been observed by commentators in Vainker. This could increase exposure for parties involved in residential construction compared to previous expectations.
Section 4 of the DPA also imposes a continuing duty on landlords to maintain fitness for habitation throughout the tenancy. Combined with the URS decision, confirming liability can extend across the supply chain – even where claimants themselves face liability – and these recent cases about the DPA are likely to be the first of many to follow. Due to the extended limitation periods, it’s anticipated that an increasing number of different case types (beyond fire safety and structural issues) will come before the courts, where the scope of the DPA duty will be considered and tested.
5. Building safety product liability
Sections 147 to 151 of the BSA introduce a new form of liability targeting manufacturers, distributors and installers of defective construction and cladding products.
This continues the significant policy shift in approach, ensuring that those responsible for unsafe materials can be held accountable even in the absence of traditional fault-based claims.
What are the implications for the world of development and construction?
Triathlon and URS reshape the legal landscape: liability for building safety defects is no longer confined to those who were involved in the primary works, but anyone who was actively involved in the construction, design and development of defective buildings.
This statutory framework replaces the patchy and often inadequate reliance on contractual warranties and negligence claims with clear, enforceable obligations – the cases of Triathlon and URS alone evidence how the courts will be prepared to use these powers robustly. There is a clear policy approach in this, evidenced by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government having been permitted to make detailed submissions to the courts in these key cases.