BDW Trading Ltd and Ardmore Construction Ltd

In a significant Technology and Construction Court (TCC) ruling, BDW Trading Ltd (a subsidiary of Barratt Developments plc) was refused an application for Information Orders under section 132 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) in its long-running liability claims against Ardmore Construction Ltd and related companies. The decision — BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 434 (TCC) — clarified the narrow scope of information orders and has important implications for how developers can evidence readiness to pursue Building Liability Orders (BLOs) against associated entities when facing potential liabilities in the region of £85 million for fire and structural defects at multiple developments. Case Background & Regulatory Context

• BDW identified fire safety and structural defects in five residential developments originally built between 1999 and 2005, for which it had assumed responsibility for remediation.

Following an adjudicator award of £14.5 million against Ardmore for the Crown Heights project, BDW commenced further claims totalling approximately £85 million for the other four developments. It was concerned that Ardmore Construction Ltd (“ACL”) lacked the financial capacity to meet potential awards or judgments.
Under the Building Safety Act 2022, a Building Liability Order (BLO) can extend liability for defects to an associated corporate entity beyond the original contractor if that contractor cannot satisfy its liabilities.
To support a potential BLO application, BDW sought Information Orders (IOs) under section 132 of the BSA requiring ACL and its related companies (Ardmore Construction Group Ltd, Ardmore Group Ltd and Ardmore Group Holdings Ltd) to disclose financial and corporate information relevant to BLO eligibility.
DecisionHis Honour Judge Keyser KC refused all the section 132 IO applications on the basis that BDW had not satisfied the statutory threshold that the targeted bodies were “subject to a relevant liability” at the time of the application. In brief:
Limits on IOs vs BLOs:

• The judgment emphasised that IOs can only be made against the corporate body that is itself subject to a relevant liability; they cannot be made pre-emptively against associated entities or on the basis that liability is merely likely.
• This interpretation departs from examples in explanatory notes to the BSA and suggests a stricter statutory framework.

Financial & Regulatory Impact

• Quantifiable exposure: BDW was pursuing approximately £85 million across four unresolved defect claims — a sum that illustrates the scale of financial risk associated with historic compliance failures.

Legal strategy constrained: Without the IOs, BDW’s ability to obtain BLOs (which could extend liability to potentially better capitalised associated companies) is restricted until liability is established in court or arbitration for the unresolved developments.
The judgment provides guidance on statutory interpretation of s132, making clear that IO applications must be grounded in evidence of actual liability, not merely forecasts or expert opinions. This could affect other developers seeking to enforce safety liabilities against wider corporate groups.
ConclusionThe TCC’s refusal of the BDW information order applications underscores the narrow and strict conditions under which Information Orders can be made under the Building Safety Act 2022. The decision shows that developers seeking to extend liability to associated companies must first demonstrate the existence of relevant liabilities, limiting early access to corporate and financial information. As a result, recovery strategies in large-scale safety defect disputes — including those involving tens of millions of pounds — may become more dependent on liability judgments or awards before broader liability enforcement tools can be used.
No established relevant liability:

• The judge found that, although BDW had obtained an adjudication award on one development, that liability had been discharged by payment and therefore did not count as a continuing “relevant liability” under s132(3)(a).
• For the other four developments, BDW’s claims remained in dispute and so the court could not be satisfied that ACL was subject to a relevant liability.

Commercial sensitivity and appropriateness:

• The court also noted that many of the documents BDW sought were commercially sensitive and not strictly necessary to identify associated companies or assess financial ability to meet liabilities for BLO purposes.