On 1 April 2026, Mr Justice Constable handed down judgment in this significant decision concerning building liability orders (BLO) under sections 130–131 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA).
Background
Ardmore Construction Limited (ACL) was engaged by Crest Nicholson (Crest) to design and construct a development known as the Admiralty Quarter in Portsmouth.
Following Grenfell, Crest discovered extensive fire safety defects which included non-compliant combustible insulation, missing cavity and fire barriers, and missing fire resistant sheathing board.
In May 2025, Crest referred the dispute to adjudication. The day before the Adjudicator was due to issue his Decision, ACL was put into administration reportedly due to its exposure to cladding defect claims.
On 29 August 2025, the Adjudicator issued his Decision. This confirmed that ACL incurred a liability under s1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA) and awarded Crest damages of £14.9m in respect of the remedial works.
ACL failed to pay the adjudicator’s decision and consequently Crest applied to the court for a BLO against ACL and its associated companies pursuant to s130 of the BSA.
The Authorities
In considering the relevant case law, the Court provided a helpful summary of the existing principles in relation to BLOs:
- The "just and equitable" test is broad and fact specific;
- The Court’s power to grant a BLO is discretionary, exercised having regard to the BSA's purpose and all relevant factors;
- Anticipatory BLOs may be made before any finding of relevant liability;
- The purpose of a BLO is to allow those responsible for defective work to be pursued through their associated companies;
- The Court should not circumscribe the test with an exhaustive list of factors;
- A BLO application should generally be case managed within the main proceedings; and
- Timing of determination is a case management matter, but the order may only be made where it is just and equitable.
Decision
The Court granted an anticipatory BLO given that: (i) it was satisfied that the development contained fire-safety defects for which ACL would be found liable; and (ii) the other defendants conceded that they were associated companies.
The Court found that an adjudicator’s decision is capable of constituting a "relevant liability" and a “building safety risk” under section 130(3)(a) and (b) of the BSA and that there is no incompatibility between the adjudication regime and BLO provisions.
Just and equitable test
The Court concluded it was just and equitable that any liability ACL may have under section 1 of the DPA or arising from a building safety risk is also the joint and several liability of each BLO Defendant.
Interestingly, the Court found that the following issues were of little to no relevance to the just and equitable test:
- That there was a disparity in profit between Crest and the ACL associates. The Court stated that the source or extent of a respondent's assets or liabilities will rarely be relevant.
- That there is potential for liability to be reduced at trial – this did not weigh against making the BLO as any reduction would increase the BLO Defendants' ability to pay
- The fact that the claimant has received or may receive building safety funding for the remedial works.
- The fact that the Claimant could benefit from insurance for the remedial works.
- The fact that the Ardmore group of companies had collectively incurred costs of £100m in relation to fire-safety defect claims.
Comment
This judgment marks a significant milestone in the developing law under the BSA.
The decision confirms that an adjudicator’s decision can establish a “relevant liability” (i.e. the substantive determination of the underlying claim) and that a BLO can be used to extend the “relevant liability” to associated companies. This combination offers claimants a potent and efficient route to recovery — particularly where, as here, the contracting entity has been placed beyond reach through corporate restructuring or insolvency.
