UK Construction and Law
Seven associated companies carry a 14.9m pound adjudication debt and the appeal against it needs the Court of Appeal
By Staff Writer | 6 September 2026
The first anticipatory building liability order reached seven companies in one group. The Technology and Construction Court refused permission to appeal on every ground, refused a leapfrog to the Supreme Court, refused a stay and refused extra time to pay.
Contractors have been waiting to see how far a liability can travel across a corporate group. The answer at first instance is on the public record, and so is the fact that the losing parties cannot reach the Court of Appeal without asking it directly.
What the order did
By a judgment of 1 April 2026, reported as Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited and others v Ardmore Construction Limited and others [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC), the court held that it was just and equitable to make two orders under sections 130 and 131 of the Building Safety Act 2022 against seven associated companies. The first makes any liability the contractor may have to the claimants under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, or as a result of a building safety risk, the joint and several liability of each of those seven. The second makes each of them jointly and severally liable for the sums the contractor owes under an adjudicator's decision of 29 August 2025 requiring payment of about 14.9m pounds. The contractor is in administration.
The consequentials judgment, [2026] EWHC 1069 (TCC) of 8 May 2026, deals with what happens next. Five grounds of appeal were advanced: that it was wrong to hold it just and equitable to make an anticipatory order at all; that it was wrong to make one while leaving to trial what part of the described liability should be transmitted; that the adjudicator's decision gave rise to no liability capable of transmission; that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to decide liability under the 1972 Act; and a further challenge to the discretion exercised on the adjudication order.
There is therefore no real prospect of demonstrating that the exercise of discretion was plainly wrong.
Mr Justice Constable, sitting in the Technology and Construction Court
Every ground refused
All five failed. On the discretion grounds the judge applied the settled rule that an appellate court will interfere with a discretionary evaluation only on a misdirection in law, procedural irregularity, the taking into account of irrelevant matters, the failure to take account of relevant ones, or a decision that is plainly wrong. The submissions largely repeated the arguments made below.
On the argument that a two stage order is outside the court's power, the judge recorded that the point would mean an anticipatory order could never exist in practice, while no challenge was made to the conclusion that the statute confers power to make one. On the adjudication grounds, the same jurisdictional question about the 1972 Act has now been decided the same way by two High Court judges, which weighs against permission a third time.
The court also declined to certify the case for a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court. It accepted that both orders raise points of potential importance for the sector, but held that whether importance amounts to a compelling reason, where there is no real prospect of success, is for the Court of Appeal.
No stay, no time to pay, interest and costs
The order stands and the money is due. There is to be no stay of execution and no extended time to pay. The associated companies were required to pay under the adjudication order within 14 days of hand down. Interest was awarded, the court holding that the transmitted liability is a debt rather than damages and that a separate order is not needed to reach interest on it. Costs follow the event in full, with a proposed reduction of 10 per cent refused.
The reasoning on interest is the passage to note when advising on exposure. The purpose of interest is to compensate for being kept out of money, any of the associated companies could have paid at any point after the adjudicator's decision, and the liability transmitted by the order includes interest arising from non payment of it.
The corporate record shows the pressure this creates. Companies House filings for Ardmore Group Holdings Ltd, Celebration Homes Limited and Systemhaven Limited record commencement of moratorium documents filed on 29 and 30 June 2026, and documents recording a moratorium ended or extended filed on 20 July 2026. Whether any restructuring proposal has since been approved by creditors is not, as at 6 September 2026, on the register or in the Gazette.
The reading for a group with residential work in its history is short. A liability order can be made before liability is quantified, an interim adjudication decision is enough to trigger transmission, and neither an appeal nor a plea of impending insolvency will hold the payment date.