Time-barred for one, not for all: DPA claim survives despite earlier failed action

If a claim for defective works has been dismissed as time-barred, is the contractor safe from further claims for the same damage? Not necessarily. In Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Construction & Anor, handed down on 7 October 2026, the judge refused to strike out a Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA) claim brought by one Taylor Wimpey group company for the same fire safety defects that had been the subject of another group company’s out-of-time claim. The decision is a reminder that the DPA duty can be owed to multiple people. Certain other parties with an interest in a dwelling may have their own cause of action, so a limitation defence against one claimant does not necessarily protect a contractor against claims by others. 

The background

Taylor Woodrow Construction (Woodrow) designed and built Victoria Wharf, a high-rise residential development in Cardiff, under contracts with Taylor Wimpey Developments Ltd (TWDL). Practical completion took place between 2005 and 2008. Fire safety defects were identified following the Grenfell fire.

In 2021 TWDL started arbitration proceedings against Woodrow for alleged breach of contract, negligence and the DPA. In May 2022 the arbitrator held that the contract and DPA claims were time-barred. 

Weeks later, the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) retrospectively extended the limitation period for certain old DPA claims to 30 years. The extension applies to claims that had not yet been settled or finally decided. At the same time, the BSA also introduced Building Liability Orders (BLOs), which can, where it is just and equitable to do so, extend liability for building safety defects to certain companies associated with the usual defendant. In practice, DPA claims and BLOs now frequently feature together in building safety disputes.

Separately, TWDL's remaining negligence claim failed in 2024.

Prior to the arbitration, in 2007, TWDL had transferred its housebuilding business, including an equitable interest in the development, to Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd (TWUK). In October 2025 TWUK issued its own DPA claim against Woodrow, together with a claim for a BLO against Woodrow's parent, Vinci Construction Holding Ltd (Vinci). Woodrow applied to strike out the proceedings as an abuse of process, arguing that they were an attempt to relitigate the failed arbitration and “an impermissible collateral attack on the arbitrator's awards”. It also argued that the BLO claim against Vinci could not survive if the underlying DPA claim was abusive (because it was dependent on the DPA claim).

What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the application. The key reasons were:

• Independent causes of action. Under the DPA, duties are owed both to the person who commissions the dwelling and to people who later acquire a legal or equitable interest in it. TWDL's claim was brought as employer; TWUK claim is brought as equitable owner. Dismissing TWDL's claim did not extinguish Woodrow's liability to others, including TWUK and the leaseholders.
• No “privity of interest”. Although the companies are now part of the same group, they were unrelated when the development was built. TWUK was not relying on rights inherited from TWDL but on its own interest in the development. The court therefore rejected the argument that the companies should be treated as effectively the same claimant for these purposes.
• The claim could not reasonably have been raised earlier. TWUK was not a party to the arbitration agreement and could not insist on joining the arbitration. It would only sensibly have brought a DPA claim after 28 June 2022, by which time TWDL's DPA claim had already been dismissed.
• No decision on the merits. TWDL's DPA claim failed on limitation, not on its merits. Delay could not justify striking out a claim brought within the 30-year period, and Woodrow had already investigated most of the issues in the arbitration.
• No collateral attack. TWUK did not challenge either of the arbitrator's limitation findings. Even if there were some overlap with the negligence findings, requiring Woodrow to answer the claim was neither manifestly unfair nor damaging to the administration of justice.

The court also declined to consider whether the BLO claim against Vinci should be disposed of by summary judgment, as no proper summary judgment application had been made.

Why does it matter?

The decision confirms that a time bar against one claimant does not necessarily dispose of the same damage for everyone. Even where one DPA claim has failed, other parties may still be able to pursue their own causes of action arising from the same defects. On a large residential scheme, the pool of potential claimants may be wide.

It is worth remembering that this was a strike-out application. The merits of the DPA claim against Woodrow and the BLO claim against Vinci are still to be decided.

Key takeaways

• Developers and their funders should map which entities hold legal or equitable interests in affected developments, particularly where group restructurings have taken place, as each may have its own DPA claim.
• Contractors and consultants should not assume that defeating one party's DPA claim on limitation ends their exposure. Reserves, insurance notifications and records may need to reflect the possibility of claims by others with an interest in the dwellings.

The decision also sits alongside a series of recent building safety cases that have illustrated the breadth of remedies now available under the BSA and related legislation. Liability for historic defects can extend beyond the original contracting parties, beyond the original claimant and, in some cases, beyond the UK.

The Construction and Engineering team at Burges Salmon regularly advises on building safety, defective premises and limitation issues and would be happy to discuss this decision or any related queries.