Crest Nicholson v Ardmore [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC)
Constable J in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has handed down judgment in Crest Nicholson v Ardmore [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC) with a decision that has wide implications for the construction industry, extending the scope of Building Liability Orders (BLOs) under section 130 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA). The judgment confirms that (a) courts can make a BLO before any finding of liability a trial, and (b) an adjudicator’s decision can establish a relevant liability under section 130 of the BSA. This is the first detailed decision on the application of the ‘just and equitable’ test for making a BLO.
Ardmore Construction Limited (ACL) was engaged by Crest Nicholson (Crest) to design and build 19 residential apartment buildings in a development known as Admiralty Quarters, in Portsmouth (the development). The development consisted of a number of high-rise buildings and was constructed between 2007 and 2009.
Following the tragic fire at Grenfell in June 2017, investigations are alleged to have revealed various fire safety defects.
Crest commenced an adjudication against ACL in 2025, which included claims for alleged breaches under the s1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA). The adjudicator’s decision was issued on 29 August 2025, with the adjudicator deciding, amongst other things, that the external wall defects amounted to a breach of Part B of the Building Regulations and ACL’s duties under the DPA. The adjudicator awarded Crest damages of close to £15 million.
On 28 August 2025, the day before the adjudicator’s decision, ACL went into administration, primarily as a result of its exposure to fire safety related claims post-Grenfell.
The sums awarded by the adjudicator were not paid. Crest made an application for a BLO against various other companies connected, to one degree or another, with ACL (the BLO defendants). Given the status of the proceedings, Crest was seeking both (a) an ‘anticipatory BLO’, making the BLO defendants jointly and severally liable for any liability ACL may be found to owe Crest under the DPA, and (b) an ‘adjudication BLO’, making the BLO defendants jointly and severally liable for the sums awarded to Crest in the adjudication.
At the hearing it was agreed that all defendants were ‘associated’ with ACL, within the meaning of section 131 of the BSA. Constable J went as far as noting that it is plain that the Ardmore Group is in effect a web of companies all with ultimate control by, and for the benefit of, Cormac Byrne and/or his family trust.
The questions for the court to determine were therefore:
The BLO defendants argued that it would be premature for the court to determine the issues said to be ‘just and equitable’ without a full trial. However, Constable J held that the court could exercise its discretion at the point in time the application is determined.
Constable J found for Crest on both issues, setting out detailed reasons in a 63-page judgment. In very brief summary, he found that:
i. ACL had no means to satisfy any judgment (and the adjudication award had gone unpaid).
ii. ACL specifically entered into administration because of its exposure to claims relating to fire safety defects post-Grenfell.
iii. ACL and the BLO defendants were part of the same group of companies which had been restructured to ringfence ACL’s liabilities.
iv. On the evidence, there can be no real dispute that the building had building safety risks within the meaning of section 131(6) of the BSA.
It was also noted that ACL and the BLO defendants had the opportunity to investigate and were aware of Crest’s claims for a long time, including being sent pre-action protocol letters, with which “they showed little interest in engaging”. They had the opportunity to put forward a positive case on breach, but did not.
This judgment demonstrates and reinforces the court’s view that the aim of BSA, which it will seek to achieve, is ensuring those who are said to be responsible for historical building safety defects pay for the costs of their remediation. This extends to making anticipatory BLOs, with liability to be determined at trial.
The judgment also shows this is not confined to thinly capitalised development SPVs, but the whole group at large. Restructuring and insolvency will not shield associated companies from the transmission of liability within the group. Given the current economic climate, we can perhaps expect to see increased activity in this area.
Following on from Smith J’s decision in BDW Trading v Ardmore Construction Limited [2024] EWHC 3235 (TCC), which confirmed that an adjudicator has jurisdiction over a claim under the DPA, the court has now confirmed that an adjudicator’s decision in such claims can create a ‘relevant liability’ within the meaning of s130 (3) of the BSA. This could further encourage claimants to pursue adjudications in an effort to provide a swifter resolution to building safety defect claims.
At the time of writing, it is understood that the BLO defendants intend to appeal this decision.
Carl Smith - Associate
Gary Thwaites - Partner
The service you deliver is integral to the success of your business. With the right technology, we can help you to heighten your customer experience, improve underwriting performance, and streamline processes.
