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

Summary

A developer facing large fire safety defect claims sought to make the parent and group companies of its insolvent contractor liable for those defects, using building liability orders under the Building Safety Act 2022. It asked for two orders: one covering any liability the contractor might be found to owe in the future, and one covering an adjudicator's decision that the contractor already owed about 14.9 million pounds.

The group companies accepted they were associates of the contractor but resisted, saying an anticipatory order before any liability was established was premature, and that an adjudicator's decision was not a relevant liability that a building liability order could reach.

Mr Justice Constable granted both orders. It was just and equitable to make the group companies jointly and severally liable for any defective premises or building safety liability the contractor may be found to owe, and for the sums owed under the adjudicator's decision. This is the first fully contested judgment on how these orders work.

Background and facts

Crest Nicholson, as developer, alleged extensive fire safety and other defects at the Admiralty Quarter development in Portsmouth, and claimed that Ardmore Construction, the contractor, was liable. Those proceedings were consolidated with a claim brought against Crest by the site owner. Ardmore Construction went into administration.

Crest applied for building liability orders under sections 130 and 131 of the Building Safety Act 2022 against the fourth to tenth defendants, the parent and group companies of the contractor, who accepted that they were associates of the contractor for the purposes of the Act.

Crest sought two orders. The first, an anticipatory order, would make the group companies jointly and severally liable for any liability the contractor might later be found to owe under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 or for a building safety risk. The second would make them liable for about 14.9 million pounds that the contractor already owed Crest under an adjudicator's decision of 29 August 2025.

The issue

Two questions were at the heart of the case. First, whether it could be just and equitable to make an anticipatory order in advance of any trial establishing the contractor's liability, or whether that was premature. Second, whether an adjudicator's decision, or the obligation to comply with it, is a relevant liability that a building liability order can reach, and whether making such an order was just and equitable.

The decision

Mr Justice Constable granted both orders.

On prematurity, he held that the Act does not require the contractor's liability to be finally determined before a building liability order can be made. Where the relevant facts allowed the discretion to be exercised now, it was open to the court to make an anticipatory order. He concluded on the first order:

"it is just and equitable to order that any liability or any liability of a specified description that the First Defendant may have to the Claimants under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 or as a result of a building safety risk is also the joint and several liability of each of the BLO Defendants."Mr Justice Constable, paragraph 125

On the second order, he rejected the argument that an adjudicator's decision falls outside the reach of a building liability order. An adjudicator's decision against the contractor was a relevant liability capable of being made the joint and several liability of the associated companies, and it was just and equitable to do so:

"it is just and equitable that each of the BLO Defendants is jointly and severally liable for the sums owed by ACL to the First and Third Claimants under the Adjudicator's Decision."Mr Justice Constable, paragraph 214

The consequential ruling that followed refused the group companies permission to appeal and a stay, and ordered them to pay interest and the developer's costs.

Practical implications

A building liability order can be made before the underlying liability is tried. The court did not require the contractor's liability to be established first, so a developer does not have to wait for a full trial against an insolvent contractor before securing the position against its solvent group. That is a powerful early remedy against corporate groups that stand behind a failed builder.

An adjudicator's decision can be swept up by an order. The court held that a decision against the contractor is a relevant liability that can be transferred to associated companies. A developer that has an adjudication award against an insolvent contractor can look to the group to pay it, which considerably increases the value of an award that might otherwise be worthless.

Being an associate is the gateway, and it was conceded here. Once a company is an associate of the original contractor within the Act, it is exposed to the just and equitable discretion. Groups should understand that ownership and control links to a construction subsidiary can carry the subsidiary's building safety liabilities, and that restructuring or insolvency will not necessarily cut that link.

The just and equitable test is fact sensitive. The court weighed a range of factors, and noted that in a different case, with more uncertainty, it might not be just and equitable to make an anticipatory order. A group resisting an order should focus on the specific facts that make the exercise of the discretion unfair, rather than a general objection to the timing.

Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited and others v Ardmore Construction Limited (in administration) and others [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC), Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Constable. Heard 2 to 4 March 2026, judgment handed down 1 April 2026.