Taylor Wimpey UK Limited v Taylor Woodrow Construction & Anor
| Court | High Court of Justice, Business and Property Division, Technology and Construction Court |
| Judge | Mr Justice Pepperall |
| Hearing | 23 and 24 June 2026 |
| Judgment | 7 October 2026 |
| Jurisdiction | England and Wales |
| Claimant | Taylor Wimpey UK Limited |
| Defendants | (1) Taylor Woodrow Construction; (2) Vinci Construction Holding Limited |
| Case reference | HT-2025-000362 |
| Outcome | Application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process dismissed |
Summary
Taylor Woodrow Construction (Woodrow) designed and built Victoria Wharf, seven high rise residential blocks in Cardiff, under contracts with Taylor Wimpey Developments Ltd (TWDL). After fire safety defects were found, TWDL arbitrated. Its claim under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (the DPA) was held statute barred in May 2022, and because that award came first, the 30 year period introduced by section 135 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (the BSA) did not help it.
Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd (TWUK), a subsidiary of TWDL that holds an equitable interest in the development, then sued Woodrow under section 1(1)(b) of the DPA and sought a building liability order against Vinci Construction Holding Ltd, Woodrow's parent. Woodrow applied to strike it out as an abuse of process. Mr Justice Pepperall dismissed the application. TWUK had its own cause of action, was not TWDL's privy, and was not challenging the arbitrator's limitation rulings. The ruling is procedural: the merits are untried.
Background and facts
Practical completion fell between November 2005 and July 2008. TWDL, the employer and sole claimant, served notice of arbitration in August 2021, pleading contract, negligence and the DPA.
The BSA received royal assent on 28 April 2022, after the limitation argument had been heard. The award dismissing the contract and DPA claims followed on 12 May 2022. Section 135 came into force on 28 June 2022. By a further decision in September 2022 the arbitrator held that, under section 135(6), the extension did not apply to a claim already finally determined.
In May 2023 Woodrow learned of a 2007 agreement transferring TWDL's housebuilding business, an equitable interest in the development and certain contract rights to TWUK. No notice of assignment had been given. The tort claim was dismissed in March 2024 because Woodrow owed TWDL no concurrent duty of care. TWUK issued proceedings on 28 October 2025, covering the same wall types and a new steelwork complaint.
The issue
Woodrow said the group was trying to relitigate the same claim through a closely connected company, treating the arbitration as a dress rehearsal. TWUK could and should have raised its claim earlier, or sought consolidation, and TWDL and TWUK were privies.
TWUK said the DPA duty is owed to several people: TWDL as the person who ordered the work under section 1(1)(a), and TWUK as a later owner of an interest under section 1(1)(b). The BSA extension runs claimant by claimant. TWDL's claim was finally determined; TWUK's never had been, so section 135(6) did not touch it.
The decision
On relitigation abuse, the judge applied the broad, merits based approach in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1. A builder in breach of section 1 is liable to the employer and to everyone who later acquires an interest in the dwellings, each with an independent cause of action. TWUK was a stranger to the building contracts and the arbitration agreement, so it could only sue in court. The judge found Woodrow most unlikely to have agreed in mid 2023 to add a revived DPA claim to an arbitration weeks from its final hearing.
TWUK was closely connected to TWDL but was not its privy. Any assignment of contract rights in 2007 covered at most the block 1 contract, took effect only in equity, was not effective against Woodrow, and was not the basis of the pleaded claim. Whether a DPA claim passes under an assignment of contract rights was left open; the judge had not been fully addressed on it.
Prejudice caused by the delay expressly countenanced by Parliament cannot justify striking out a claim that has been brought well within that very long limitation period.Mr Justice Pepperall, paragraph 47.4
In my judgment, requiring Woodrow now to address this DPA claim on its merits is not unjust harassment.Mr Justice Pepperall, paragraph 51
The collateral attack argument, under Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529, failed at the first hurdle. The only DPA decisions in the arbitration were the two limitation rulings, TWUK challenged neither, and the arbitrator made no findings on the merits of the DPA claim. In the alternative, the judge said that even if the claim did involve a collateral challenge to the arbitrator's decision, it would be neither manifestly unfair nor damaging to the administration of justice.
Woodrow's points about Vinci and the building liability order were not abuse arguments. The judge declined an invitation to treat them as a summary judgment application when none had been issued under Part 24.
Practical implications
Section 135(6) kept the old limitation period for TWDL because its DPA claim had been finally determined before 28 June 2022. On this judgment, that bar attaches to the claim that was determined, not to the building. Every person who acquired an interest in the dwellings has a separate cause of action, and a group company holding an equitable interest is one of them.
An award against the employer gives a contractor little protection against a non party who could not have joined the arbitration and does not challenge what the arbitrator decided. For developers the danger runs the other way: the group entity that holds the interest in the building, not the one that signed the contract, may be the one with a live claim. Here the 2007 transfer agreement came to light only in May 2023.
Practice points
- Map every party with an interest in the dwellings before relying on a final award or judgment against the employer. Each may hold its own section 1(1)(b) claim.
- Check the group's transfer agreements at the outset of any defects claim. Here the 2007 agreement surfaced only weeks before the final arbitration hearing.
- Where a related company may have its own claim, raise it early with the opposing party and the tribunal, and consider whether consolidation or a separate court claim is the right route.
- Do not assume an assignment clause carries DPA claims. The court left that question open, and a prohibition on equitable assignment may make it ineffective against the contractor.
- If a building liability order claim is weak on its own merits, apply for summary judgment under Part 24. The court will not treat a strike out application as one.