Crest Nicholson v Ardmore

SummaryIn a landmark 1 April 2026 decision, the Technology & Construction Court (TCC) significantly broadened the reach and application of Building Liability Orders (BLOs) under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) in Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd & Ors v Ardmore Construction Ltd (in Administration) & Ors [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC). The court granted both an “anticipatory” BLO and an “adjudication” BLO against a group of companies associated with Ardmore Construction Ltd (ACL), making them jointly and severally liable for a large adjudicator’s award and any future liability arising out of building safety defects at a major residential development. ([turn0search7])
Background

• Claimants: Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd, Crest Nicholson (South) Ltd, Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd, and Crest Nicholson PLC — developers and long leaseholders of the Admiralty Quarter residential development in Portsmouth.
• Respondent: Ardmore Construction Ltd (ACL), the principal contractor under a design & build contract, which entered administration in August 2025 — shortly before an adjudicator held it liable for approximately £14.9 million in external wall and fire safety defects.
• Defects: The Admiralty Quarter development was found to have extensive building safety defects, including combustible materials, missing or defective cavity barriers, inadequate fire stopping, and other fire compartmentation failures — qualifying as building safety risks under the BSA. ([turn0search7])

Legal Issues AddressedCrest Nicholson sought two forms of Building Liability Order under Section 130 of the BSA:

1. An anticipatory BLO — making the associated “BLO Defendants” jointly and severally liable for any liability ACL may ultimately incur (e.g., under the Defective Premises Act 1972 or BSA).
2. An adjudication BLO — making the same parties jointly and severally liable for the £14.9 million adjudicator’s award already made against ACL. ([turn0search7])

The defendants did not dispute that they were “associates” for the purposes of the Act but contended that BLOs should not be made at this stage — particularly prior to a full trial on liability and before a final judgment. The court had to decide:

• whether an adjudicator’s decision could constitute a “relevant liability” for BLO purposes;
• whether the court had jurisdiction to grant an anticipatory BLO; and
• whether, on the facts, it was just and equitable to do so. ([turn0search7])

Court’s DecisionMr Justice Constable held that:

• An adjudicator’s decision does constitute a “relevant liability” under section 130(3) of the BSA, capable of underpinning a BLO — meaning adjudication is not incompatible with the BLO regime.
• The court can make an anticipatory BLO prior to a final trial finding on liability, if it is satisfied, to a high degree of confidence, that a relevant liability will ultimately be found.
• On the specific facts — including ACL’s insolvency, its part in a wider corporate group restructured to isolate liabilities, and the presence of building safety risks — it was just and equitable to issue both the anticipatory BLO and adjudication BLO against several Ardmore group companies.
• The orders make the group companies jointly and severally liable, significantly increasing the potential financial exposure of solvent entities connected with ACL. ([turn0search7])

Financial and Regulatory ImpactWhy It MattersThis decision represents a major development in how Building Liability Orders are deployed:

• Group-wide liability: It confirms that liability under the BSA can be extended beyond the insolvent primary contractor — holding solvent associated companies financially responsible as well.
• Adjudication + BLO synergy: It establishes that adjudication awards (even if not yet fully enforced or reduced to judgment) can form the basis for a BLO — accelerating enforcement and limiting tactical delay.
• Anticipatory BLOs: The court’s willingness to grant anticipatory orders marks a procedural shift, enabling claimants to lock in group liability earlier than under traditional mechanisms.
• Regulatory purpose: By enabling courts to reach through corporate structures, the decision helps prevent developers/contractors from using insolvency or restructuring as a shield against safety-related liabilities.