The Grenfell Tower tragedy has reshaped the legal landscape for construction defects and professional negligence. Following the final report of the Grenfell Inquiry, the UK government accepted all 58 recommendations and launched sweeping reforms to building safety regulation, product accountability, and professional oversight.
Legal claims for cladding and fire safety defects have surged. According to Construction News, litigation in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) now exceeds £640 million in total value. The Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) introduced groundbreaking remedies—including Remediation Orders and Building Liability Orders—that pierce the corporate veil and extend liability to non-contracting parties.
In URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court addressed professional negligence in structural engineering, reinforcing the duty of care owed by consultants and the evidentiary burden required to prove breach. As limitation periods stretch up to 30 years under the Defective Premises Act 1972, legal teams must now manage multi-decade disputes with precision.
Technical Evidence: Design, Engineering, and Correspondence
Defects and professional negligence claims hinge on highly technical documentation. Key evidence types include:
- Design Drawings: Architectural plans, structural calculations, fire safety layouts—often revised multiple times across project phases.
- Engineering Reports: Site inspections, load assessments, remediation proposals—frequently authored by third-party consultants.
- Correspondence: Emails, meeting minutes, change orders—revealing decision-making, risk awareness, and contractual obligations.
Machine Learning for Technical Data Review
Traditional document review struggles with technical language and inconsistent formatting. Machine learning offers a breakthrough:
- Natural Language Processing (NLP): Understands engineering terminology, extracts key concepts, and flags anomalies.
- Clustering Algorithms: Groups similar documents (e.g., fire safety reports, cladding specifications) for bulk review.
- Entity Recognition: Identifies parties, dates, and project phases across fragmented correspondence.
This enables faster early case assessment, stronger privilege review, and defensible production—especially in disputes involving multiple consultants, subcontractors, and insurers.
Managed Review for Multi-Year Consistency
Defects litigation often unfolds over years, with rolling productions, evolving pleadings, and shifting custodians. Managed review ensures:
- Consistency in coding: Across privilege, responsiveness, and issue tagging—even as teams change.
- Quality control: With audit trails, sampling protocols, and escalation workflows.
- Scalability: To handle new data sets as disputes expand or settle in stages.
In post-Grenfell litigation, where reputational and regulatory stakes are high, consistency is not just operational—it’s strategic.
Strategic Implications for Legal Leaders
General counsel and heads of litigation in the construction sector must now treat technical evidence as a strategic asset. This means:
- Embedding machine learning into review workflows
- Partnering with providers who understand construction-specific documentation
- Preparing for a future where digital defensibility is central to professional negligence claims
The Grenfell legacy has redefined accountability. Legal teams equipped with modern review capabilities will be better positioned to manage risk, defend reputation, and deliver results in professional negligence in engineering disputes.
.jpg?width=400&name=iStock-2222660797%20(1).jpg)
.jpg?width=400&name=iStock-2185337504%20(6).jpg)