000			01997nas a22002177a 4500
007			ta
008			250625s2025 xxk||||os||||o00| 0 eng d
041			_aeng
245			_aURS Corporation v BDW Trading Ltd
260			_a[2025] UKSC 21, _bUK Supreme Court _c21 May 2025
520			_aAppeal against decision in Court of Appeal dismissed. Where a developer aimed to remedy defects due to faulty design and carried out repairs to buildings it no longer owned, there was no "voluntariness principle" which operated as a bright-line rule of law to place the developer's losses outside the duty of care owed by the designer. Although the developer had repaired property which no longer belonged to it without any legally enforceable obligation to do so, it was arguable that it had had no realistic alternative in view of the risk that defects might cause injury to occupants and reputational damage to the developer, such that it was not exercising sufficiently full and free choice in effecting the repairs. The issues were whether BDW had suffered actionable damage, or whether the damage was outside the scope of the duty of care or too remote because it was voluntarily incurred; whether s.135 of the Building Safety Act 2022 applied; whether URS owed a duty to BDW under s.1(1)(a) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 and, if so, whether BDW's losses were recoverable for breach of that duty; and whether BDW was entitled to bring a claim against URS under s.1 of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 notwithstanding that there had been no judgment or settlement between BDW and any third party.
650			_aBUILDING SAFETY ACT 2022
650			_aCIVIL LIABILITY (CONTRIBUTION) ACT 1978
650			_aDEFECTIVE PREMISES ACT 1972
650			_aDEFECTIVE WORKS
650			_aLIABILITY
650			_aPROPERTY DEVELOPERS
650			_aRESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
651			_aUnited Kingdom
856			_uhttps://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2023-0110 _zAvailable from Supreme Court
999			_c122182 _d122182