Shorter Reads

Building Safety Act’s 30-year liability: compassionate or draconian?

There has long been recognition that on building projects, claimants’ rights of action should not remain open indefinitely. Arising from legislators’ understandable reaction to the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, the Building Safety Act’s significant 30-year limitation period raises fundamental issues regarding the balance of claimants’ and defendants’ rights.

Is a 30-year liability compassionate or draconian? CB Construction expert Adrian Bingham and Trainee Olivia Barrett consider.

2 minute read

Published 30 September 2024

Authors

Share

Key information

  • Services
  • Construction

There has long been recognition that claimants’ rights of action should not remain open indefinitely. The first statute to address this systematically was in 1623, and its six-year limitation period for contracts and actions of tort remained remarkably durable. By the time the legislation was repealed in 1986, the six-year period, with 12 years for contracts under seal, had become thoroughly enshrined.

The Latent Damage Act 1986 opened the door to longer limitation periods by introducing a 15-year-long stop for non-personal injury negligence claims. But the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) goes a lot further with 30-year periods, raising fundamental issues regarding the balance of claimants’ and defendants’ rights.

The 30-year periods have clearly arisen from legislators’ understandable reaction of horror to the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire. The tragedy also led to concerns over the need to protect leaseholders from the cost of remediating historical building-safety defects.

There are two BSA provisions that require consideration:

  • Section 4B(4) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (introduced by s.135 of the BSA), which, in brief, allows claimants 30 years to bring claims arising before 28 June 2022 against “a person taking on work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling” for breach of the duty to “see that the work [is] done in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner, with proper materials and so that as regards that work the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed”.
  • Section 10B(2) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (introduced by s.149 of the BSA), which, in brief, allows claimants 30 years to bring claims arising before 28 June 2022 against manufacturers and suppliers of defective or misleadingly described cladding products which, when installed, render a dwelling unfit for habitation.

There are considerable practical, professional and personal issues arising from limitation periods of such length. These considerations appear to have been recognised in some measure by Parliament in s.135(5) of the BSA, which states that the court must dismiss a s.4B(4) claim if it is necessary to avoid breaching a defendant’s human rights.

In particular, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be relevant to this. It states: “In the determination of … civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.” Therefore, perhaps somewhat curiously, human rights defences are available to professionals and contractors accused of negligent work in relation to a dwelling, but not to manufacturers and suppliers of cladding materials.

Practicality in question

So what are the problems of bringing claims that are up to 30 years old?

  • Very few people will have a clear recollection of the projects they were dealing with decades ago. Also, they would either have been involved at a far more junior level than their current status, or they might be retired altogether. Not only do memories fade, but a witness of advanced years may also have serious cognition issues.
  • There will be an inevitable tendency to apply hindsight as to what standard of care should have been exercised at the time in question. This temptation should of course be resisted by claimants, but it may not be.
  • The routine destruction of paper and electronic records after a few years, and/or the inaccessibility in many cases of the latter due to changes in IT systems, will be a challenge to whichever party has the burden of proof.
  • It may not be easy to locate and interpret the technical standards that applied at the material time, many of which may have been far more broad-brush than current standards. The same is likely to apply to construction product data.
  • If an expert witness was not in practice when the alleged negligence occurred, or was very junior at the time, then opponents may well attack their evidence on the basis of lack of direct experience of the matters in issue.

However well-intentioned the legislators were in enacting retrospective 30-year time limits, it can be argued that doing so has gone against several centuries of history and principle. Successfully claiming under the legislation may in practice be vastly challenging, and satellite human rights litigation may well be one of the consequences of the reforms.

This article was first published in Construction News: Building Safety Act’s 30-year liability: compassionate or draconian? | Construction News

Related latest updates
PREV NEXT

Related content

Arrow Back to Insights

Shorter Reads

Building Safety Act’s 30-year liability: compassionate or draconian?

There has long been recognition that on building projects, claimants’ rights of action should not remain open indefinitely. Arising from legislators’ understandable reaction to the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, the Building Safety Act’s significant 30-year limitation period raises fundamental issues regarding the balance of claimants’ and defendants’ rights.

Is a 30-year liability compassionate or draconian? CB Construction expert Adrian Bingham and Trainee Olivia Barrett consider.

Published 30 September 2024

Associated sectors / services

  • Construction

Authors

There has long been recognition that claimants’ rights of action should not remain open indefinitely. The first statute to address this systematically was in 1623, and its six-year limitation period for contracts and actions of tort remained remarkably durable. By the time the legislation was repealed in 1986, the six-year period, with 12 years for contracts under seal, had become thoroughly enshrined.

The Latent Damage Act 1986 opened the door to longer limitation periods by introducing a 15-year-long stop for non-personal injury negligence claims. But the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) goes a lot further with 30-year periods, raising fundamental issues regarding the balance of claimants’ and defendants’ rights.

The 30-year periods have clearly arisen from legislators’ understandable reaction of horror to the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire. The tragedy also led to concerns over the need to protect leaseholders from the cost of remediating historical building-safety defects.

There are two BSA provisions that require consideration:

  • Section 4B(4) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (introduced by s.135 of the BSA), which, in brief, allows claimants 30 years to bring claims arising before 28 June 2022 against “a person taking on work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling” for breach of the duty to “see that the work [is] done in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner, with proper materials and so that as regards that work the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed”.
  • Section 10B(2) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (introduced by s.149 of the BSA), which, in brief, allows claimants 30 years to bring claims arising before 28 June 2022 against manufacturers and suppliers of defective or misleadingly described cladding products which, when installed, render a dwelling unfit for habitation.

There are considerable practical, professional and personal issues arising from limitation periods of such length. These considerations appear to have been recognised in some measure by Parliament in s.135(5) of the BSA, which states that the court must dismiss a s.4B(4) claim if it is necessary to avoid breaching a defendant’s human rights.

In particular, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be relevant to this. It states: “In the determination of … civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.” Therefore, perhaps somewhat curiously, human rights defences are available to professionals and contractors accused of negligent work in relation to a dwelling, but not to manufacturers and suppliers of cladding materials.

Practicality in question

So what are the problems of bringing claims that are up to 30 years old?

  • Very few people will have a clear recollection of the projects they were dealing with decades ago. Also, they would either have been involved at a far more junior level than their current status, or they might be retired altogether. Not only do memories fade, but a witness of advanced years may also have serious cognition issues.
  • There will be an inevitable tendency to apply hindsight as to what standard of care should have been exercised at the time in question. This temptation should of course be resisted by claimants, but it may not be.
  • The routine destruction of paper and electronic records after a few years, and/or the inaccessibility in many cases of the latter due to changes in IT systems, will be a challenge to whichever party has the burden of proof.
  • It may not be easy to locate and interpret the technical standards that applied at the material time, many of which may have been far more broad-brush than current standards. The same is likely to apply to construction product data.
  • If an expert witness was not in practice when the alleged negligence occurred, or was very junior at the time, then opponents may well attack their evidence on the basis of lack of direct experience of the matters in issue.

However well-intentioned the legislators were in enacting retrospective 30-year time limits, it can be argued that doing so has gone against several centuries of history and principle. Successfully claiming under the legislation may in practice be vastly challenging, and satellite human rights litigation may well be one of the consequences of the reforms.

This article was first published in Construction News: Building Safety Act’s 30-year liability: compassionate or draconian? | Construction News

Associated sectors / services

  • Construction

Authors

Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.

    Subscribe

    Please add your details and your areas of interest below

    Specialist sectors:

    Legal services:

    Other information:

    Jurisdictions of interest to you (other than UK):



    Article contributors

    Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?

    Subscribe to our articles

    Message us on WhatsApp (calling not available)

    Please note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.

    I accept Close

    Close
    Scroll up

    Find out about Business

    Find out about Dispute Resolution

    Find out about Individuals & Families

    Find out about Real Estate

    We are Collyer Bristow - The law firm for those that
    value individuality, creativity and collaboration.

    Legal & Pricing info Regulatory InformationAccessibilitySitemapPricing and service information

    Read our latest article: Lloyd’s of London to tackle misconduct

    Read our latest article: Building Safety Act’s 30-year liability: compassionate or draconian?

    Read our latest article: Is the Government set to U-Turn on its Non-Dom Tax Policy?

    Listen to our latest podcast: UK Probate for Americans (Part 2)

    Listen to our latest podcast: UK Probate for Americans (Part 1)

    ExpandNeed some help?Toggle

    < Back to menu

    I have an issue and need your help

    Scroll to see our A-Z list of expertise

    Get in touch

    Get in touch using our form below.



      Business Close
      Private Wealth Close
      Hot Topics Close