Advisory note for property developers: Defective Premises Act (Northern Ireland) 2024
The Defective Premises Act (Northern Ireland) 2024 represents a material recalibration of risk for property developers, contractors and consultants operating in Northern Ireland. It aligns the limitation regime for defective dwellings more closely with the position long established in England and Wales, and it materially extends potential exposure for historic and future projects. Developers should now assume that claims which would previously have been time‑barred under the six‑year rule may be revived, and that future schemes will carry a significantly longer tail of potential liability.
Background and the Victoria Square litigation
The immediate catalyst for reform was the Victoria Square Apartments litigation, in which owners were displaced in 2019 due to structural defects and initially found themselves without a legal remedy because the Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 imposed a six‑year limitation period from completion. In March 2024, the High Court held the claim was time‑barred. The public interest dimension, and the disparity with the limitation periods applicable in England and Wales, prompted legislative action. Following Royal Assent, the new Act commenced on 21 September 2024. Subsequent appellate activity in December 2024 revived the Victoria Square claim to be determined afresh by the High Court, underscoring the practical effect of the legislative change on live and historic disputes.
The new limitation regime: 15 years prospectively; 30 years retrospectively
Under the Act, the limitation period for claims in respect of dwellings completed after Royal Assent is now 15 years from completion. For dwellings completed before commencement, the period extends to 30 years. For developers, this is a fundamental shift from a short, six‑year window to a long‑tail liability framework. The clock ordinarily runs from the date of practical completion of the dwelling. Where further work is undertaken to remedy unsatisfactory workmanship, the limitation period for defects addressed by those works runs from completion of the remedial works, effectively restarting the clock for that aspect of the dwelling.
Scope of duties and who may be sued
The Act preserves and expands duties owed by those “taking on work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling.” This captures main contractors, subcontractors, developers, designers and consultants whose work affects the habitability or quality of the dwelling. The duty is owed not only to the commissioning client but also to subsequent owners and those acquiring an interest in the property. There is a limited carve‑out where a contractor’s sole obligation is to follow another’s instructions and there is no contractual or tortious duty to warn; in that scenario, liability for defects specified by others may be curtailed. The Act applies to existing buildings as well as new builds, so refurbishment, renovation and conversion projects fall within scope.
A notable gap remains: material suppliers and manufacturers are not directly brought within this statutory liability, placing a greater compliance and diligence burden on those in the contracting and design chain who select, specify and install materials.
Practical implications for developers
From a developer’s perspective, the key implications are legal, commercial and operational. Legally, the extended limitation periods heighten exposure to historic claims on projects completed many years ago, and they lengthen the claims horizon for current and future schemes. Contractual frameworks will need to account for that shift. Developers should review standard form appointments, building contracts and collateral warranties to align limitation, warranty and indemnity periods with the new statutory regime. Where possible, back‑to‑back obligations and flowdown risk allocation with contractors, designers and specialist subcontractors should be tightened, including duties to warn, fitness for purpose exclusions where appropriate, and clear responsibility for specification and selection of materials.
Commercially, the longer tail is likely to affect the availability, scope and pricing of professional indemnity and latent defects insurance. Developers should engage early with brokers and insurers to ensure adequate retroactive cover and to adjust notification and document retention practices to reflect longer exposure. Particular attention should be paid to projects approaching the 15 or 30‑year thresholds and to any remedial works that could reset limitation for the elements addressed.
Operationally, quality assurance, technical governance and record‑keeping become even more critical. Comprehensive design sign‑off procedures, robust change control, product selection due diligence, and site inspection records will be central to defending claims many years after completion. Developers should maintain a disciplined document retention policy calibrated to at least the applicable limitation period plus a reasonable buffer, and ensure that as‑built information, manufacturer data, certificates and test results are complete and readily retrievable. Where remedial works are commissioned, the scope, rationale, inspection regime and completion date should be meticulously recorded.
Managing historic and live risk
The retrospective 30‑year reach invites a triage of completed projects. Developers should consider undertaking a portfolio‑level risk review to identify schemes with known issues, atypical construction methods, complex structural interfaces or extensive refurbishment histories. Early engagement with contractors, design teams and insurers may yield pragmatic resolutions, including proactive investigations or voluntary remedial programmes where appropriate. Any potential claims or circumstances should be evaluated against policy notification provisions without delay.
For live projects, developers should revisit procurement strategies, ensuring appropriate allocation of risk for design and workmanship, clear inspection regimes, and proportionate performance security. Supply chain scrutiny should be strengthened given the exclusion of material suppliers from the statutory net; specifications should require compliant, proven products, with contractual recourse for substitution and non‑conformance.
Next steps
The Defective Premises Act (Northern Ireland) 2024 materially changes the liability landscape for residential development and refurbishment. Developers should act promptly to recalibrate contracts, insurance arrangements and internal controls to the extended limitation periods and widened claimant class. Targeted portfolio reviews, enhanced technical governance and disciplined record management will be key to mitigating the legal and commercial impact of the reform.