The Building Safety Act 2022 ("BSA 2022") has transformed liability for building safety defects in England and Wales more profoundly than any legislation in a generation. It reaches back decades into completed projects, reaches across corporate groups, and reaches down supply chains to product manufacturers. Sean Brannigan KC has acted in several of the leading cases decided under the Act. This page is a working guide to the litigation provisions and the emerging case law, updated as the jurisprudence develops.
What the Act changed
For dispute lawyers, the Act's centre of gravity lies in four groups of provisions: the dramatically extended limitation periods for claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (s.135); the new causes of action against construction product manufacturers (ss.147–149); Building Liability Orders and their supporting information orders (ss.130–132), which allow liabilities to be extended to associated companies; and the remediation regime for higher-risk and relevant buildings (including remediation orders and remediation contribution orders in the First-tier Tribunal). Together they redistribute risk across the whole construction ecosystem: developers, contractors, consultants, manufacturers, and their corporate groups.
Building Liability Orders — ss.130–132
A Building Liability Order allows the High Court to provide that a "relevant liability" of one body corporate — a liability incurred under the Defective Premises Act 1972, under s.38 of the Building Act 1984, or as a result of a building safety risk — is also the liability of one or more associated bodies corporate, where the Court considers it just and equitable to do so. Association is defined by control (s.131); s.132 provides for information orders compelling disclosure about a company's group. The BLO is the Act's answer to the special-purpose vehicle: it prevents building safety liabilities being stranded in dormant or dissolved entities while value sits elsewhere in the group.
The leading procedural guidance remains Willmott Dixon v Prater [2024] EWHC 1190 (TCC), in which the TCC confirmed that a BLO need not await establishment of the underlying liability and may be pursued within existing proceedings — including, for the first time, by a Part 20 claimant by way of contribution proceedings. Sean acted for the successful Part 20 claimant: read the case note. The TCC has since confirmed the breadth of the jurisdiction, including in relation to liabilities established in adjudication: Crest Nicholson v Ardmore [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC).
Extended limitation — s.135
Section 135 extends the limitation period for claims under s.1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 to 30 years retrospectively (for causes of action which accrued before 28 June 2022) and 15 years prospectively, and applies the 15-year period to the new s.2A DPA claims and s.38 Building Act 1984 claims. The Supreme Court's decision in URS Corporation v BDW Trading [2025] UKSC 21 resolved a series of foundational questions in favour of a broad remedial reading of the regime — including on the ability of developers who have carried out remedial works to pursue recovery down the chain, the application of the retrospective limitation period, and the scope of the duties owed under the 1972 Act. Any limitation analysis on a building safety claim now begins with s.135 and URS v BDW.
Claims against product manufacturers — ss.147–149
Sections 147–149 create new statutory causes of action against manufacturers and sellers of construction products, with s.149 directed specifically at cladding products which are inherent defects or are installed as a result of misleading marketing, where the relevant conditions as to dwelling unfitness are met. These provisions remain at the frontier of the case law. Shepherd Construction v Kingspan & Ors — a c.£70m multi-party fire safety claim in which Sean acts for the claimant — is among the first deployments of s.149 against cladding manufacturers, and featured in The Lawyer's Top 20 Cases of 2024: read the case note.
Remediation orders and contribution
For relevant buildings over 11 metres, the Act's leaseholder protections in Schedule 8 and the remediation order / remediation contribution order regime in ss.123–124 give the First-tier Tribunal a parallel jurisdiction directed at getting buildings fixed and costs recovered from those responsible, including landlords' associated companies. The interaction between FTT remediation proceedings, TCC defect claims and BLO relief is one of the developing strategic questions in this area.
Procedure and jurisdiction still matter
The new substantive rights have not relaxed the ordinary disciplines of litigation. In Coal Pension Properties v Mace Living [2026] EWHC 1248 (TCC), a building safety-era claim failed at the threshold: service of the claim form on the last day of its validity was invalid, retrospective validation under CPR 6.15 was refused, and the Court declared it had no jurisdiction to try the claim. Sean acted for the successful Mace defendants: read the case note.
Key decisions at a glance
URS Corporation v BDW Trading [2025] UKSC 21 — the Supreme Court's foundational ruling on the DPA, s.135 limitation and recovery by remediating developers.
Willmott Dixon v Prater [2024] EWHC 1190 (TCC) — BLO procedure; Part 20/contribution route confirmed. Case note.
Crest Nicholson v Ardmore [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC) — breadth of the BLO jurisdiction, including adjudication-established liabilities.
Shepherd Construction v Kingspan & Ors — s.149 cladding product claims in action. Case note.
Coal Pension Properties v Mace Living [2026] EWHC 1248 (TCC) — service and jurisdiction discipline. Case note.
This page is a general overview of a fast-developing area and is not legal advice on any particular matter.
← All insights