Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited & Ors v Ardmore Construction Limited (in Administration) & Ors

Summary

This is the consequentials ruling that followed a landmark building liability order decision. The court had already held it just and equitable to make the parent and group companies of an insolvent contractor jointly and severally liable for that contractor's building safety liabilities, including about 14.9 million pounds owed under an adjudicator's decision.

The group companies applied for permission to appeal, a leapfrog to the Supreme Court, a stay of execution or more time to pay, and a reduction in interest and costs. The developer resisted and sought interest and its full costs.

Mr Justice Constable refused permission to appeal and refused to certify a leapfrog. He refused any stay or extra time to pay, awarded the developer interest at 5 per cent, and ordered the group companies to pay all of the developer's costs. Once a building liability order is made, the targets must pay.

Background and facts

Crest Nicholson, as developer, had applied under sections 130 and 131 of the Building Safety Act 2022 for building liability orders against the parent and group companies of Ardmore Construction, the original contractor, which was in administration.

By a judgment of 1 April 2026, [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC), the court made two orders. The first made the group companies jointly and severally liable for any liability Ardmore might have to Crest under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 or for a building safety risk. The second made them jointly and severally liable for about 14.9 million pounds that Ardmore owed Crest under an adjudicator's decision of 29 August 2025.

This later judgment dealt with what followed: permission to appeal and a possible leapfrog to the Supreme Court, a stay or more time to pay, interest, and costs.

The issue

The court had to decide whether the group companies had a real prospect of success on appeal or some other compelling reason for an appeal, whether execution should be stayed or delayed, whether the developer could recover interest on the adjudicated sum, and whether its costs should be reduced.

The decision

On permission to appeal, the judge found no real prospect of success on the grounds advanced against either order. The proposition that an adjudicator's decision could give rise to a relevant liability capable of being caught by a building liability order, and the related points, had now been decided the same way by two High Court judges. He declined to certify a leapfrog to the Supreme Court, leaving any argument that there was a compelling reason for an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

On the stay, the group companies had not shown any inability to pay or any exceptional facts. The judge was direct:

"there should be no stay of execution nor an extended time to pay."Mr Justice Constable, paragraph 43

On interest, it was not fatal that interest had not been claimed in the original application, and the objection to it misread the purpose of an award:

"the purpose of interest is to compensate a claimant for being kept out of their money."Mr Justice Constable, paragraph 46

The group companies could have paid at any time, so the developer was awarded interest at 5 per cent from September 2025. On costs, the general rule is that costs follow the event. The group companies had succeeded only on a minor point, that the court may transmit some rather than all of a liability when making an order, which did not displace the rule. The developer recovered all of its costs.

Practical implications

A building liability order is not a paper remedy. Once the court makes group companies jointly and severally liable for a contractor's building safety liabilities, they are exposed to enforcement in the ordinary way. Solvency will not buy a stay or more time to pay, and interest and costs run against them.

The decision confirms, at first instance and now with two judges of the same view, that an adjudicator's decision against the original contractor can found a building liability order. A developer that has secured an adjudication award against an insolvent contractor can look to the solvent group for payment, subject to the just and equitable discretion.

For a group facing an order, an appeal is not a reason to withhold payment. The court treated the importance of the points as a matter for the Court of Appeal, not a ground to stay enforcement, and declined a leapfrog while the law is still developing through the ordinary appellate route.

For a developer, claim interest and costs as part of the consequentials even if interest was not pleaded at the outset. The court will compensate for the time the money was outstanding, and success on the application as a whole will usually carry the costs.

Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited and others v Ardmore Construction Limited (in administration) and others [2026] EWHC 1069 (TCC), Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Constable. Heard 28 April 2026, judgment handed down 8 May 2026.