Building Links network rounds up the key construction law cases that have shaped the industry in 2025

The legal landscape for construction professionals, developers and associated entities has been transformed by the enactment of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA). Recent judgments from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) provide critical guidance on limitation periods, liability hierarchies, claims management and risk allocation. 

These issues were at the forefront of discussions during our recent Building Links event — held on 27 November 2025 in our Manchester office — where Alexandra Bodnar of Keating Chambers expertly guided us through the pivotal cases of 2025 while explaining the practical implications and emerging trends that are shaping the industry.

Here, construction lawyer and the founder of the Building Links network, Jennie Jones, provides an overview of key cases from 2025 that you need to know about.

1. URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 

This dispute concerned structural design defects identified by BDW in two of its high-rise residential developments during 2019. Consulting engineer URS was responsible for the structural design. Although BDW had already sold the properties and any homeowner claims in relation to the defects would have been time-barred, BDW nevertheless undertook remedial works in 2020 and 2021 and subsequently sued URS to recover its costs. Following the introduction of the BSA and its extended limitation period, BDW successfully sought leave to add claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA) and the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. After multiple hearings, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favour of BDW.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle in Pirelli that negligence claims for latent defects accrue when defective elements are incorporated into the building, not when they’re discovered. This means that developers can’t rely on later discovery to restart limitation periods for such claims.

Section 135 of the BSA extends the limitation period retrospectively to 30 years for DPA claims accrued before 28 June 2022, enabling developers to pursue historic claims decades after completion of the works.

Developers who remediate defects voluntarily can still recover costs from those responsible. The Court emphasised that public policy encourages proactive remediation and developers shouldn’t be penalised for “doing the right thing”.

The Court also held that professional consultants owe duties under the DPA, extending statutory obligations beyond contractors. This broadens the pool of potential defendants from whom developers can seek recovery.

This judgment strengthens the position of developers seeking redress for historic defects and signals that consultants should review historic projects for potential liability exposure under the DPA.

2. BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 3235 (TCC)

This dispute concerned fire safety defects discovered at the Crown Heights residential development in Hampshire nearly 20 years post-completion. Basingstoke Property Company Limited (BPCL) engaged Ardmore to carry out the works, which were completed between 2003 and 2004. BPCL subsequently assigned its interests and rights under the contract to BDW. BDW alleged that Ardmore breached the building contract and Section 1(1) of the DPA. It relied on the extended limitation period under the BSA and referred the matter to adjudication. The adjudicator ultimately awarded BDW over £14m. Ardmore resisted enforcement, arguing (among other points) that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the DPA claim was statutory and the adjudication clause only covered disputes arising “under this contract”, as well as that the process was unfair given Ardmore’s lack of documentation due to passage of time since completion which forced reliance on BDW’s evidence. However, the TCC rejected its objections and enforced the decision.

The TCC confirmed that adjudication is available for resolving historic defect claims under the DPA, thanks to the BSA’s extended limitation periods.

The judgment underscores the broad scope of adjudication clauses and the courts’ willingness to enforce adjudicators’ decisions, even in complex historic disputes.

This decision means that developers now have a powerful enforcement tool for historic safety claims through adjudication, reducing reliance on lengthy and expensive litigation proceedings. It also significantly alters risk profiles for contractors who should ensure strong project governance to deal with historic cladding claims.

3. Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership [2025] EWCA Civ 846

This dispute concerned fire safety defects discovered in the external walls of five tower blocks in the former London 2012 Olympic Village at Stratford in November 2020. The estate was managed by East Village Management Ltd, which undertook major remediation works largely funded by the Building Safety Fund. Triathlon — which holds long leasehold interests in the social housing in the blocks — applied for Remediation Contribution Orders (RCOs) under Section 124 of the BSA to recover its share of the remediation costs and other costs incurred from the original developer of the estate (Stratford Village Development Partnership) and its parent company (Get Living plc). The First-tier Tribunal granted the orders. The parties appealed but were unsuccessful.

The Court of Appeal established that RCOs under Section 124 of the BSA can apply retrospectively covering costs incurred before 28 June 2022, even where public funding such as the Building Safety Fund is available.

It was deemed “just and equitable” to impose RCOs on developers and their associated entities, placing them at the top of the liability hierarchy.

Parent companies and associated entities — even if not involved in the original construction — can’t shield themselves behind thinly capitalised Special Purpose Vehicles to avoid liability.

Public funds are a last resort — not a substitute for developer responsibility.

This case demonstrates that corporate groups must anticipate liability exposure across their entire structure (including parent companies) and implement robust governance and financial planning to meet potential remediation obligations.

4. Section 149 of the BSA — Liability for Past Defaults on Cladding Products

Section 149 of the BSA introduces a new statutory cause of action against manufacturers and suppliers of cladding products for past defaults with a limitation period of 30 years for claims arising before 28 June 2022 and 15 years thereafter.

Claimants must satisfy four conditions:

1. There must be a breach of a cladding product requirement, misleading marketing statement or inherently defective product.
2. The product is attached to or included in the external wall of a relevant building.
3. The building is unfit for habitation.
4. Causation.

Despite the broad drafting of this provision, proving all four conditions — especially causation — will be challenging.

We expect to see a rise in claims being brought against manufacturers and suppliers of cladding products. However, historic documentation gaps, complex causation chains and reliance issues mean that these cases will likely be fact-heavy, expert-driven and expensive to litigate.

5. Wilson & Others v HB (SWA) Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1360

This dispute concerned fire safety and other defects discovered at a high-rise residential complex in Cardiff, built by Redrow between 2004 and 2007. Forty-one leaseholders (including Mr and Mrs Wilson) sued HB (Redrow’s successor) for breach of contract and Section 1 of the DPA. Before trial, HB agreed with the management company to carry out a comprehensive programme of remedial works. As a result, no claims for remedial costs could be made. Also, the Wilsons submitted a Schedule of Loss containing nine heads of loss not in accordance with those pleaded in their particulars of claim. The TCC struck out seven of these losses as too remote, unclear or speculative. The Wilsons appealed but were unsuccessful.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that claimants can’t introduce new claims under a separate "Schedule of Loss" — any new head of loss must be properly pleaded and particularised in the statement of case.

Losses are to be clearly pleaded and evidenced as any speculative losses — such as claims for investment losses and tax planning in this case — will be struck out.

The Court also held that if developers agree to remediate at no cost, claimants can’t recover the costs of those works. Only residual “blight” (post-remediation diminution in value) may be recoverable.

This decision narrows the scope of recoverable damages where developers agree to remediate defects. The judgment also strictly reinforces the importance of proper pleading standards in construction defect cases. It emphasises that damages claims must be clearly particularised in the initial pleadings and that subsequent documents (like a Schedule of Loss) can’t be used to introduce new claims. 

6. John Sisk & Son Ltd v Capital and Centric (Rose) Ltd [2025] EWHC 594 (TCC)

This dispute concerned risk allocation for existing structures under a heavily amended JCT Design & Build 2016 contract. Capital & Centric engaged Sisk to construct new residential buildings and repair two listed mills at Weir Mill, Stockport. Clause 2.42 placed the risk of existing structures on Sisk but Item 2 of the “Contract Clarifications” (in both electronic and hard copy versions) required the Employer to insure the existing buildings and obtain a warranty, suggesting Employer risk. The electronic version also included a “Tender Submission Clarifications” worksheet implying Capital & Centric didn’t accept the risk during negotiations, creating inconsistency. 

The Court ruled in favour of Sisk, holding that Item 2 (Employer Risk) overrode the general risk allocation clauses. Inconsistencies were resolved in favour of the signed hard copy. 

Only documents expressly incorporated into the contract have legal effect — pre-contract clarifications and tender notes in electronic bundles can’t influence interpretation.

This case serves as a reminder for parties to ensure that their risk allocation provisions are clear and internally consistent and that all versions of documents (such as electronic and hard copy) are identical to avoid costly litigation. 

Overall themes & practical takeaways

1. Extended limitation periods: the BSA has revolutionised historic liability — developers and consultants can now face claims decades after project completion.
2. Hierarchy of responsibility: developers and their corporate groups sit at the top of the liability chain. Public funds remain a last resort.
3. Retrospective liability for manufacturers and suppliers: Section 149 of the BSA creates new exposure for cladding product manufacturers and suppliers, though evidential challenges remain.
4. Contractual clarity: ambiguity in risk allocation clauses can lead to expensive litigation. Parties should draft with precision and ensure consistency across all contract versions.
5. Claims management: Courts demand particularised pleadings and will strike out speculative losses and unpleaded issues.

Want to know more? Join the Building Links network

Building Links is a networking group for construction and property professionals. Each quarter, we bring together leading voices to discuss and demystify the key issues that affect the industry — providing members with essential guidance on how to navigate challenges and capitalise on opportunities. 

These exclusive, invite-only events focus on education, collaboration and sharing best practice. They also present a great opportunity to network with peers in a welcoming and friendly environment. 

Find out more and join the network.

Talk to us

Our experienced construction lawyers use decades of expertise to provide proactive, commercially focused support across all aspects of construction services to protect your interests and mitigate risk throughout the lifecycle of a project.

Talk to our experts today by giving us a call on 0333 004 4488, sending us an email or completing our contact form below.