Crest Nicholson v Ardmore: TCC confirms Building Liability Orders can reach group companies before liability is decided

Summary

The High Court’s ruling in Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd (in administration) and others [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC), together with the court's subsequent refusal to grant permission to appeal [2026] EWHC 1069 (TCC), is a landmark decision on the scope and operation of Building Liability Orders (BLOs) under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA).

It represents the first fully contested judgment providing detailed guidance on how BLOs will operate in practice and confirms that the courts will take an expansive, purposive approach to their use.

In particular, the case provides the first comprehensive guidance on the practical application of BLOs. It shows the court's willingness to use these orders to look beyond the original contracting party and impose liability on other companies within the same corporate group structure where appropriate.

The implications are notable. Parties such as developers and freeholders who have faced considerable expenditure on remedial works will welcome the expanded scope for recovery. On the other hand, contractors and corporate group structures can no longer assume that liability will be limited to the contracting entity, especially where that entity lacks sufficient assets or has become insolvent.

Background

Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd & Ors (Crest) engaged Ardmore Construction Ltd (in administration) (Ardmore) as the design and build contractor for 19 residential apartment buildings (Development). Post‑Grenfell investigations into the external walls of the Development identified serious fire safety defects, including combustible materials (Fire Safety Defects).

Crest commenced adjudication proceedings under the contract and Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA). The adjudicator decided that the Fire Safety Defects amounted to a breach of Part B of the Building Regulations and Ardmore’s duties under the DPA, and that Ardmore should pay Crest c. £14.9m. Ardmore subsequently entered into administration following a group restructuring and the sums awarded by the adjudicator were not paid.

Crest then sought to bypass the insolvency of the contracting entity by applying for a Building Liability Order (BLO) pursuant to ss.130–131 Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) against Ardmore’s associated companies. The BLO comprised two parts:

1. An anticipatory BLO in respect of prospective DPA / building safety liabilities.
2. An order making Ardmore's associated companies jointly and severally liable for the sum awarded by the adjudicator.

As a reminder: Section 130 BSA enables the High Court to make a BLO, extending a relevant liability (e.g. for building safety risk or DPA claim) from the original wrongdoer to an associated company where it is just and equitable to do so.

Court's Findings

When this matter came before the Court there were four key questions to be determined:

Q1: Can a BLO be made before liability is finally established?

The Court held that nothing in the BSA requires the original body’s liability to be adjudicated or finally determined before a BLO can be granted.

This decision confirms that the Court can determine, in advance, that associated entities will share liability if and when that liability is established elsewhere, effectively creating a contingent statutory indemnity.

The Court held that an anticipatory BLO is just and equitable and may operate in substance like a statutory indemnity, becoming effective once liability is established elsewhere.

Q2: Does an adjudicator’s decision constitute a “relevant liability” under s.130 BSA?

An adjudicator’s decision, although only temporarily binding, can amount to a “relevant liability” because the obligation to comply with an adjudicator’s award is an immediately enforceable legal obligation.

This part of the decision represents a significant development enabling claimants to combine adjudication (for speed) with BLOs (for enforcement against a wider group), which may enhance recovery prospects.

Q3: Is it “just and equitable” to impose joint and several liability on group companies where the contracting entity is insolvent?

The judge confirmed the “just and equitable” test is broad and fact‑sensitive, and must be applied consistently with the statutory purpose of the BSA: ensuring those responsible for historical defects meet remediation costs.

Relevant factors in this case included:

1. the contractor's insolvency;
2. the fact that the contractor was unable to satisfy any judgment;
3. the wider group restructuring undertaken to isolate historic liabilities;
4. the common ownership and control of the group;
5. the strong prima facie case that serious building safety defects existed; and
6. the legislative purpose of ensuring that those responsible for defects bear the cost of remediation.

Notably, the Court took a sceptical view of the contractor's attempts to ringfence liabilities through restructuring and emphasised that insolvency will not prevent the Court from looking to the wider corporate group where justice requires.

Q4: Can DPA claims fall within contractual adjudication clauses?

Applying Fiona Trust and BDW Trading v Ardmore, the Court held that an adjudicator has jurisdiction to decide claims under the DPA where the contractual adjudication clauses refer broadly to disputes “under the contract”.

This further reinforces adjudication as a powerful route for resolving fire safety disputes, including statutory claims.

Constable J also commented that even if the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction in relation to one party, it was possible to sever the decision and enforce the decision against another party where jurisdiction existed.

The Court also confirmed that BLOs may be made in respect of all or part of a liability, allowing tailored allocation across group entities where appropriate.

Appeal

The Defendants sought to appeal the decision. However, the Court refused an application for permission to appeal, finding that they had failed to show a real prospect of success or other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.

The Court also declined to grant a stay of execution or additional time to pay the Adjudicator's Award, noting that the group’s financial position did not justify such relief.

Practical Takeaways

This is a landmark decision which demonstrates the practical reach of Building Liability Orders under the Building Safety Act 2022. Traditional limits of separate corporate personality will not necessarily prevent the Court from extending liability where it considers it just and equitable to do so. This reflects the statutory intention that responsibility for building safety defects should not be avoided through complex or undercapitalised corporate structures.

The judgment confirms that an adjudicator’s decision is capable of constituting a “relevant liability” for the purposes of a BLO and that such orders may be granted on an anticipatory basis. The decision therefore provides important clarity on how BLOs interact with adjudication and the wider statutory regime.

The Court’s approach to the “just and equitable” test is of particular significance, with clear emphasis on substance over form in the assessment of corporate group structures and financial arrangements. In that context, the decision will be of relevance to participants across the construction and real estate sector, particularly where projects involve complex group structures or historic fire safety issues.

The ability to extend liability across associated entities, and to do so at an early stage, is likely to be a key consideration in how building safety risks are assessed, managed and structured. Equally, the decision underlines the increasing importance of understanding how adjudication outcomes may interact with statutory remedies under the BSA.

Whilst the TCC has refused permission to appeal, the Court of Appeal may take a different view in due course. For now, this decision represents a leading authority on the operation and scope of Building Liability Orders.