Crest Nicholson v Ardmore: High Court clarifies scope of Building Liability Orders under the Building Safety Act

Quick read

The High Court’s recent decision in Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd & Others v Ardmore Construction Ltd (in administration) & Others[1] provides an extensive judicial analysis of the Building Liability Order (BLO) regime under sections 130–131 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA).

The judgment confirms that:

• Anticipatory BLOs may be granted before any underlying liability is finally established or crystallised;
• Adjudicators’ decisions can constitute “relevant liabilities” for the purposes of section 130 of the BSA;
• BLOs may attach to interim adjudication liabilities (which sit in parallel to operation of the BSA); and
• The Court retains wide discretion to impose BLOs where it considers it just and equitable to do so, including for a proportion of a relevant liability.

Background

The case concerned the Admiralty Quarter Development in Portsmouth, comprising of 19 residential buildings constructed between 2007 and 2009 under a JCT Design and Build Contract (the Contract).

Post‑Grenfell investigations identified significant fire safety and construction defects across the Development, including the use of combustible external wall materials, missing or inadequately installed cavity barriers, and widespread failures in internal fire‑stopping and compartmentation.

In May 2025, the claimants, members of the Crest Nicholson group of companies (Crest), obtained an adjudication award of c.£14.9 million against Ardmore Construction Ltd (ACL), with the adjudicator finding that there were defects that amounted to breaches of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA) and the Contract.

ACL entered administration the day before the adjudicator’s decision was issued. Normally, a company entering administration is protected by a statutory moratorium that precludes claims continuing against the insolvent company.  This is in addition to the practical point that an insolvent company is unlikely to have any assets that could be used to meet an adjudicator’s decision or court judgment.

By the time ACL entered administration, the wider Ardmore group (of which ACL was part) had undergone certain corporate restructurings aimed at isolating ACL’s historic liabilities.  Against that background, Crest sought to pursue companies within the wider Ardmore group in respect of ACL’s liabilities.

The BLO applications and decisions

Crest applied for two BLOs against several ACL associated group companies (collectively, the BLO Defendants).

Although the BLO Defendants accepted that they were “associates” of ACL for the purposes of section 131 of the BSA, they resisted both BLOs.

Anticipatory BLO

Crest sought an anticipatory BLO requiring ACL’s associated entities to assume any future relevant liability that ACL may ultimately be found to owe, including liability under the DPA and for building safety risks.

The BLO Defendants resisted the application on the grounds of prematurity (i.e. there had been no determination of liability issues at trial) and that it was unjust and inequitable to impose group‑wide exposure.

However, the Court granted the anticipatory BLO, being satisfied that the Development presented serious building safety risks and that ACL would ultimately be found liable. Section 130 of the BSA does not require a liability to be crystalised at a trial before a BLO may be made.

The Court noted that ACL’s entry into administration had been triggered by its exposure to building safety claims and that the Ardmore group had undertaken restructuring which effectively sought to ringfence ACL’s liabilities. In the circumstances, the Court concluded that granting the BLO at this stage was “just and equitable”, as opposed to waiting for a later decision on liability at trial. Delaying relief risked potentially leaving Crest without an effective remedy due to ACL’s insolvency.

Adjudication BLO

Crest sought an adjudication BLO to make the same associated entities jointly and severally liable for the c.£14.9 million adjudication award obtained against ACL.

The BLO Defendants objected, asserting an alleged incompatibility between adjudication and the BLO regimes and that adjudicators lack jurisdiction over DPA claims. Further, the BLO Defendants argued that the interim and temporary nature of adjudication proceedings made it unsuitable for the making of such an order.

The BLO was granted. The Court found an adjudicator’s decision is a binding determination of liability for the purposes of section 130(3)(a) BSA (liability under the DPA) and section 130(3)(b) (liability arising from a building safety risk). The interim nature of adjudication does not undermine its status as a “relevant liability”, and the adjudication and BLO regimes operate to address construction-related disputes in parallel (rather than being mutually exclusive or in conflict).

Rejected grounds of challenge

In reaching the two decisions mentioned above, the Court rejected a wide range of arguments advanced by the BLO Defendants which may be of interest to those involved in claims of this nature:

1. Policy points: The primary intention of section 130 BSA being “to avoid SPVs being created to carry out building works or developments and dissolved shortly after the works are completed to avoid liability, thus preventing domestic property owners from having their properties rectified” was too narrow an interpretation. The BSA aims to ensure that whoever caused historical building safety defects pays for their remediation.
2. Claimant’s commercial developer status: The suggestion that Crest’s status as a commercial developer should weigh against the making of a BLO was dismissed as the BSA is not limited to protecting leaseholders.
3. Financial considerations: The BLO Defendants’ claims of financial weakness or that the position would lead to financial inconvenience to the Ardmore group were given little weight on the evidence. Further, the profitability comparison between Crest and ACL (in the Development and overall) was given little weight given the purpose behind the BSA.
4. Quantum: The Court further held that uncertainty over quantum was not a barrier to granting a BLO.
5. Proportionality and relative blameworthiness: Arguments that any relative blameworthiness on the part of Crest’s consultants, who approved the design, should preclude a BLO were rejected on the basis that such issues can be addressed later through proportionate reductions if appropriate.
6. Public funding: The possibility of Crest benefiting from public funding, such as the Building Safety Fund, did not justify displacing liability from those responsible for the defects.
7. Insurance: Crest’s insurance position was given no or little weight in the exercise of discretion. The Judge noted it “fanciful to suggest that the Court would conclude following trial that Crest (or its subrogated insurers) could not benefit from a BLO at all on account of this issue” [paragraph 119].
8. Adjudication processes: Finally, the Court dismissed allegations of inequality in the adjudication process, noting that ACL had long been aware of the claims, had access to expert advice, and had made its own strategic decisions in choosing how to participate.

Practical implications

Building safety disputes are likely to remain a major and evolving area across the UK construction sector. The Court’s confirmation that anticipatory BLOs and adjudication‑based liabilities fall within the relevant statutory framework represent significant developments in the operation of the BSA and building safety regime more generally.

The Court made clear that it will give full effect to the purpose of the BSA and will not readily defer BLO applications pending trial. The judgment provides further guidance on the scope, application and reach of BLOs, and how and when these may be made. The Court’s decision therefore has clear practical implications for those operating across the UK construction sector.

The confirmation that both anticipatory and adjudication‑based BLOs are available without the underlying liability having been determined provides a route for claimants to seek recovery from solvent group companies at an early stage, even where the original contracting party is insolvent. This may mean we see early or tactical use of BLO applications before trial.

For corporate groups, the judgment emphasises the importance of early, group‑wide review and risk assessment as to the potential exposure to liabilities relating to historic or live projects under the building safety regime. A subsequent restructuring or administration will be scrutinised as part of the applicable evidence and will not always shield associated corporate entities from liability under the BSA.

Beale & Co has experience advising clients on building safety contractual provisions, risk management and disputes at all stages of the project lifecycle. If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this update or require support on building safety matters generally, please contact the authors or your usual Beale & Co contact.

[1] Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd & Ors v Ardmore Construction Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC) (1 April 2026)