by Oscar Venus | 30 May, 2025 | Main News Feed
FIS is proud to be partnering with The Skills Centre to support the launch of a new 4-week Interior Systems Bootcamp, starting 2 June 2025 at the Build East training facility in Stratford, London.
This intensive programme is designed to equip learners with the practical skills and knowledge they need to take their first steps into our industry. As part of our commitment to tackling the skills shortage and nurturing new talent, we’re calling on FIS members in the Greater London area to get involved.
Can you offer work experience, employment opportunities, or apprenticeships to these aspiring interior systems installers?
We are arranging site visits for interested employers during:
This is a fantastic opportunity to meet the next generation of fit-out professionals and support their journey into the sector.
To find out more or express your interest, please contact Beena.
by Clair Mooney | 29 May, 2025 | Building Safety Act, Contractual and Legal, Legal cases, Main News Feed
On 21 May 2025 the Supreme Court handed down Judgment in the case of URS Corporation Ltd -v- BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21.
This Judgment is perhaps one of the most significant since the Building Safety Act came into force as it starts to give us an indication of how Developers claims are going to impact the wider market. The case addressed important issues such as:
(1) the scope of duty and the recoverability of loss in negligence;
(2) limitation periods under section 135 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA);
(3) whether section 1(1)(a) of the Defective Premises Act (DPA) applies to developers; and
(4) whether a judgment or settlement is required to enable a party to bring a contribution claim under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (Contribution Act).
The facts
BDW is a major property developer and includes Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes. URS, was engaged by BDW to act as a structural design consultant in connection with multiple high-rise residential developments which completed some considerable time ago. In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy BDW reviewed its portfolio. Two of its high-rise residential developments contained design defects.
Even though BDW had disposed of its interest and sold the developments, in 2020 and 2021 BDW undertook remedial works to the properties at significant cost. At this stage no claim was made against BDW by any third party and in any event, at the time, any such claims would have been time barred.
In March 2020, BDW brought a defects claim against URS to recover its losses. BDW successfully amended the claim in June 2022 following the coming into force of the BSA which retrospectively extended the limitation period for claims under section 1 of the DPA from 6 to 30 years. The case ended up the Supreme Court where Seven Justices of the Supreme Court heard 4 grounds of appeal in December 2024:
Decision
All four grounds the Court found in favour of BDW (URS’s appeals were dismissed):
| Ground 1 |
Is loss that is otherwise recoverable in the tort of negligence irrecoverable if it is incurred (i) without an enforceable legal obligation to do so, and (ii) in respect of property in which the claimant has no proprietary interest, because such loss is voluntarily incurred, and that means it falls outside the scope of the defendant’s duty of care and/or is too remote?
No. There is no rule of law which means that the voluntary carrying out of the repairs by BDW render the repair costs (1) outside the scope of the duty of care owed or (2) too remote. Whether these costs were recoverable is a question of fact and depends on legal issues of causation and mitigation which will be assessed when considering liability. The effect of this is that developers who incur costs to remedy building safety defects, even in the absence of a claim from a third party, may be able to recover these costs from the negligent builder or designer. |
| Ground 2 |
Does section 135 of the BSA (extended limitation period) apply in the present circumstances and, if so, what is its effect?
Yes. Section 135(3) BSA applies to claims which are dependent on s.1 DPA. To make a claim, a developer would need to establish that it applies to actions arising out of a liability that is dependent on section 1 of the DPA even though it is not an action brought under section 1 of the DPA. Such actions are clearly “in respect of damage or defects in relation to buildings”. The Supreme Court said the alternative would undermine the purpose of the BSA i.e. to ensure those responsible for historic building safety defects are held to account.
There is a possible sting in the tail for developers or other relevant claimants seeking to recover losses incurred despite the existence of a potential limitation defence. This is because section 135 (3) BSA does not retrospectively affect the answer to the questions of causation, mitigation and remoteness which determine whether a developer can recover compensation from a negligent designer or contractor for the cost of remedial work carried out before June 2022. This will be a matter to be addressed when considering liability. |
| Ground 3 |
Does section 1(1)(a) of the DPA also apply to property developers?
Yes. The Supreme Court have said that there is no reason why a developer cannot both owe a duty and be a owed a duty, particularly where the developer is the first owner. |
| Ground 4 |
Is BDW entitled to bring a contribution claim against the URS under section 1 of the Contribution Act when there has been no judgment or settlement between BDW and any third party and no third party has ever asserted any claim against BDW?
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the right to contribution arises when: (i) damage has been suffered by C for which D1 and D2 are each liable; and (ii) D1 has paid or been ordered or agreed to pay compensation for the damage to C. On the facts, BDW paid compensation (in kind) for the damage suffered by the homeowners by carrying out the repairs. The fact that there has been no judgment against the developer or admission of liability or settlement between it and any of the homeowners, nor any claim, does not prevent the claim for contribution. |
It is worth noting too that, as intervener, the government made written submissions relating to the background to the BSA, the structure of the BSA and the policy and purpose underlying the BSA in general and section 135 in particular. These submissions were very much supportive of BDW’s case.
The consequences
The Supreme Court has provided encouragement and motivation to developers to be proactive in carrying out repairs by clarifying the law and signifying that there are a host of options available to them to seek to recover those costs.
This gives “teeth” to the BSA and the policy underpinning the Act.
The Supreme Court’s decision will likely have a significant impact on historic claims for building safety defects. However, there are some wrinkles to be ironed out. Whilst the policy behind the decision may be clear, some of the legal issues remain complex and nuanced and the effect of this judgment will be subject to further debate and discussion and clarification by the court and for future cases to involve arguments around causation and mitigation.
This article is an abridged version of an article originally written by FIS Legal Advisors Hill Dickinson, the full article can be seen here.
by Clair Mooney | 22 May, 2025 | Main News Feed
CITB has announced that 67% of construction employers have voted in favour of its Levy plans, after confirming that it achieved Consensus in support for its Levy Proposals that aim to help provide training for the construction industry across the next three years.
FIS was one of two Prescribed Organisations that were in disagreement with the Levy Proposals.
The result means that Levy rates are proposed to remain the same for 2026-29. The proposed Levy arrangements are:
- PAYE: 0.35%
- Net paid (Taxable) CIS Sub-contractors: 1.25%
- Increase the Levy Exemption and Reduction Thresholds to £150,000 and £500,000.
If the employee payroll and Net paid (taxable) CIS subcontractors combined is less than £150,000, employers will not pay a Levy. If it is between £150,000 and £499,999, they will receive an automatic reduction of 50%. This approach was supported by a majority of employers at a recent consultation and means CITB will continue to support its smallest employers, so the Levy delivers for all.
FIS Head of Skills Beena Nana said:
After consultation with our members, FIS voted against the CITB levy proposals. Many of our members feel it isn’t delivering value, with little evidence of progress or meaningful impact on the key issues facing the sector, such as skills shortages, training, and workforce development.
FIS remains committed to supporting members by promoting skills development, and working with industry partners to ensure members can access the talent, support, and resources they need to thrive
CITB has now submitted the results to the Department for Education to ratify. Once ratified a new Levy Order can be raised.
Tim Balcon, CEO at CITB, said:
“Thank you to all employers who took part in the Consensus process.
“The Levy is designed to ensure that construction employers of all sizes feel supported with their skills and training needs. It plays a vital role in investing in the British construction industry, ensuring the development of a skilled workforce to meet the sector’s current and future demands.
“We are really pleased that Levy payers continue to be supportive of the Levy Proposals. We will now focus on delivering our Strategic Plan through which we aim to support at least 35,000 employers over the next four years and establish a simpler, more responsive skills and training system better aligned with industry needs.”
For more results information Consensus 2025.
Find out more about how your Levy will be invested in construction skills by exploring the Strategic Plan.
by Clair Mooney | 16 May, 2025 | Main News Feed
The BSI has published PAS 8700, sponsored by MHCLG, to standardise and streamline the use of modern methods of construction (MMC) in new-build residential properties. It covers project set up, design, information management, delivery and assembly, and maintenance and repair.
This PAS sets out the process for the effective deployment of modern methods of construction (MMC) in residential development to improve stakeholder understanding and realise the benefits of MMC. As the sector has significantly evolved and matured, there is a need for greater consistency and comparability to increase the use of MMC.
by Clair Mooney | 15 May, 2025 | Main News Feed, Skills
As part of this process, members of the plastering sector are being contacted to participate in the review. This offers a chance for industry professionals to influence the standards that will ultimately shape N/SVQs.
CITB are seeking representation from across England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, with the consultation planned to begin in the next couple of weeks.
Interested parties can complete the provided form https://forms.office.com/e/rgVfxvSymW to participate.
More information on National Occupational Standards can be found here: National Occupational Standards (NOS) – CITB
by Clair Mooney | 13 May, 2025 | Main News Feed
The Home Office have announced that new measures were unveiled in the Immigration White Paper ‘Restoring Control over the Immigration System’ to reshape their immigration system towards those who contribute the most to economic growth, with higher skills standards for graduates and workers.
New requirements on employers to boost domestic training will end the reliance on international recruitment.
Every area of the immigration system – work, family, and study – will be tightened up, to reduce record-high levels of net migration and restore control and order to the immigration system.
Core principles of the plan include:
- Reduce net migration: Ensure migration levels are controlled and manageable.
- Link to UK skills needs: Align immigration with domestic training and skills requirements, avoiding over-reliance on foreign workers.
- Fair and clear rules: Make the system transparent and effective, with Parliament-defined rules, especially around family life.
- Enforce the rules: Strengthen enforcement, including tackling illegal work and deporting foreign criminals.
- Promote integration: Support community cohesion through English language requirements and assessing migrants’ contributions.
FIS Chief Executive Iain McIlwee commented:
“It remains a concern that there is insufficient differentiation between the types of immigration.
“For me, it remains disappointing that the political need to drive down the headline numbers continue to overshadow the practical economic need to consider the merits of migration to key parts of the economy by considering the skills shortages that could well constrain growth.
“We have over the past 50 years, we have become increasingly reliant on immigration. While it’s encouraging to see renewed investment in the skills landscape, we are still not yet the beneficiaries of this investment. No one is arguing against investing in domestic training and modular construction, but that may not be enough in the short to medium term.”
Further information regarding the Immigration White Paper announcement can be found by visiting: Prime Minister’s remarks and Gov.uk news story
