The Lesser of Two Evils? Comparative Analysis of how Common Law Jurisdictions Approach Accrual of Causes of Action in Negligence Post-Pirelli

William Haslam

July 2024

A paper based on the winning entry in the Hudson Prize essay competition 2023 and presented to the Society of Construction Law on 2nd July 2024

The recent case of URS Corp v BDW Trading Ltd asks the question: when does a cause of action accrue in tort for a defectively designed building where no damage has yet occurred? The starting point for this question is the House of Lords decision in Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber & Partners. With permission to appeal obtained by URS, it remains uncertain whether the days of Pirelli are numbered. This paper provides a comparative analysis and review of other jurisdictions’ experience of Pirelli. The author sets out the relevance and background of the URS v BDW case; he compares the approach of different jurisdictions post-Pirelli and sets out his conclusion based on this comparative analysis.

Introduction – I. URS v BDW: reaffirming existing principles or a springboard to a post-Pirelli future? – II. Pirelli in other jurisdictions – (i) Australia – (ii) Canada – (iii) Hong Kong – III. Comparative analysis 

The author: William Haslam is a pupil barrister at Atkin Chambers

Text: 11 pages