Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited & Ors v Ardmore Construction Limited (in Administration) & Ors [2026] EWHC 1069 (TCC)

SCCSI

(Providing Elite Certification Programmes to Construction Professionals Since 2009)

Explore Our Construction Claims and Contracts Certification Programmes

Presented by

Society of Construction Claims
Specialists International

sccsinternational.org

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

[2026] EWHC 1069 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Technology and Construction Court

Before Mr Justice Constable | Heard 28 April 2026 | Handed down 8 May 2026

Interactive Process Flow | BLO consequential orders

Case Analysis Process Flow

0 of 7 nodes explored

1. Case Overview

Case: Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited & Ors v Ardmore Construction Limited (in Administration) & Ors [2026] EWHC 1069 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Technology and Construction Court
Judge: Mr Justice Constable
Hearing Date: 28 April 2026
Judgment Date: 8 May 2026
Case No: HT-2022-000295

This judgment determined matters arising from Crest Nicholson's successful application for building liability orders under sections 130-131 of the Building Safety Act 2022. In the earlier judgment, [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC), the court made an anticipatory building liability order and extended Ardmore Construction Limited's liability under an adjudicator's decision for approximately £14.9m to seven associated companies on a joint and several basis (paragraph 1). The associated companies sought permission to appeal, a leapfrog certificate, a stay of execution or additional time to pay. Crest sought interest and all of its costs. The court refused the defendants' applications, awarded interest to Crest and allowed Crest 100% of its costs (paragraphs 2 and 43-49).

Central Legal Test: Permission to appeal required a real prospect of success or another compelling reason under CPR 52.6. A stay of execution required a good reason to withhold the fruits of judgment, with a strong presumption of immediate enforcement where the debt arose from an adjudicator's decision (paragraphs 3 and 15-22).

Parties and Representation

Claimants: Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited, Crest Nicholson (South) Limited, Crest Nicholson Operations Limited and Crest Nicholson Plc, represented by Jonathan Selby KC and Harriet Di Francesco, instructed by Gateley Legal.

BLO Defendants: Ardmore Construction Group Limited, Ardmore Group Limited, Ardmore Group Holdings Limited, Paddington Construction Limited, Ardmore Fitout Limited, Celebration Homes Limited and Byrne Properties Limited, represented by Simon Hughes KC, James Frampton and Connie Trendle, instructed by Rosenblatt Law.

Orders Made in the Earlier Judgment

The court had ordered that any liability of the specified description which Ardmore Construction Limited may have under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 or because of a building safety risk would also be the joint and several liability of the BLO Defendants. It also made them jointly and severally liable for the sums due under the adjudicator's decision dated 29 August 2025 (paragraph 1).

Consequential Issues

The court addressed permission to appeal and a proposed leapfrog appeal, a stay of execution, additional time to pay, interest and whether Crest's recoverable costs should be reduced (paragraph 2).

2. Procedural History

Earlier Adjudication and BLO Judgment

29 August 2025: The adjudicator decided that Ardmore Construction Limited must pay Crest approximately £14.9m (paragraph 1).

1 April 2026: The court handed down [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC), granting the anticipatory and adjudication building liability orders against the associated companies (paragraph 1).

Consequentials Hearing

28 April 2026: The court heard the defendants' applications and Crest's consequential claims.

8 May 2026: This judgment was handed down remotely. The court fixed payment under the adjudication building liability order within 14 days of hand-down (paragraph 43).

Applications Before the Court

The BLO Defendants advanced five proposed appeal grounds, requested certification for an appeal directly to the Supreme Court, sought a stay under CPR 83.7 and/or CPR 52.16, and alternatively requested instalments or additional time under CPR 40.11. Crest claimed interest at 5% from 5 September 2025 and resisted a proposed 10% costs reduction (paragraphs 2, 4 and 44-49).

3. Defendant's Position

The BLO Defendants challenged both forms of building liability order and maintained that immediate payment would cause serious financial harm. They also resisted interest and sought a 10% reduction in Crest's costs (paragraphs 4, 23-33 and 44-49).

Five Proposed Appeal Grounds

The defendants argued that it was not just and equitable to make an anticipatory order, that a two-stage anticipatory order was impermissible, that an adjudicator's decision was not relevant liability for a building liability order, that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction over the Defective Premises Act 1972 issue, and that the adjudication order was not just and equitable (paragraph 4).

Claimed Inability to Pay

The defendants relied on changing cash-flow forecasts, property values, proposed lending facilities and Mr Horne's evidence. Their final proposal was an initial £2m payment followed by £500,000 per month, on the basis that a larger immediate payment was said to threaten the group (paragraphs 23-33).

Interest and Costs Objections

The defendants argued that interest had not been sought in the BLO application and that nothing was due from them before the order was made. They also contended that Crest had not proved expenditure warranting interest and sought a 10% costs reduction for their limited success on whether a building liability order could transmit only part of a liability (paragraphs 44 and 47-49).

4. Claimant's Position

Crest said the proposed appeals had no real prospect of success, the financial evidence did not establish inability to pay, and the ordinary adjudication policy of immediate payment should apply. It also sought interest and all of its costs (paragraphs 5-14, 23-35 and 44-49).

No Appealable Error

Crest submitted that the defendants were repeating arguments rejected in the earlier judgment without identifying a legal error or a plainly wrong exercise of discretion. It maintained that the Building Safety Act permitted anticipatory orders and that an existing adjudication debt could be relevant liability even if its status was interim (paragraphs 5-13).

Immediate Enforcement

Crest relied on the strong presumption that adjudicators' decisions are enforced promptly. It challenged the inconsistent forecasts, unexplained changes in property values and lending proposals, and the absence of evidence that no funds could be obtained from the group's owner or another associated person (paragraphs 16-23 and 26-33).

Interest and Full Costs

Crest argued that interest compensated it for being kept out of money due under the adjudicator's decision and that the building liability order attached to Ardmore Construction Limited's liability, including interest. It also said its success on the application as a whole justified the ordinary order that costs follow the event (paragraphs 45-49).

5. Court's Analysis

Permission to Appeal Refused

None of the five grounds had a real prospect of success. The challenges to the just and equitable decisions repeated the defendants' earlier case without identifying a reviewable error; the two-stage order was within the statutory jurisdiction; the adjudication liability existed when the BLO was made; and the adjudicator's jurisdiction point had already been decided consistently by two High Court judges (paragraphs 5-13).

No Compelling Reason or Leapfrog Certificate

The court recognised the wider importance of anticipatory and adjudication building liability orders, but held that any compelling-reason issue was best left to the Court of Appeal. It refused to certify a direct appeal to the Supreme Court (paragraph 14).

Inability to Pay Not Proved

The defendants' financial evidence contained unexplained changes in cash flow, working-capital requirements, property values and proposed facilities. It fell below the coherent evidential standard needed to prove inability to pay. There was also no evidence from Cormac Byrne addressing whether associated funds would be made available, which independently defeated the application (paragraphs 23-33).

No Exceptional Basis for a Stay or More Time

Because inability to pay was not established, the discretion to stay did not arise. Even if it had arisen, there were no exceptional factors sufficient to displace immediate enforcement. The same evidence did not justify instalments or an extension beyond the ordinary 14-day payment period (paragraphs 34-43).

Interest and Costs Followed Crest's Success

The absence of an interest claim in the original application was not fatal and caused no prejudice. The BLO attached to the original liability, including interest caused by non-payment, and that liability was a debt rather than damages. Crest's success justified 100% of its costs because the defendants' success on one limited point did not warrant a reduction (paragraphs 44-49).

6. Decision and Outcome

Winner: The Claimant (Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited and associated companies) succeeded.

Result: Permission to appeal and certification for a leapfrog appeal were refused. The court refused a stay and additional time to pay, ordered payment within 14 days, awarded interest at 5% from 5 September 2025 and awarded Crest 100% of its costs (paragraphs 14, 43 and 44-49). The Defendants (the Fourth to Tenth Defendants) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: The associated Ardmore companies remained jointly and severally liable under the adjudication building liability order and had to pay within 14 days. Their appeal applications did not suspend enforcement.

Appeal Applications

The court refused permission on all five grounds and declined to certify an appeal directly to the Supreme Court (paragraphs 5-14).

Payment and Enforcement

There was no stay of execution and no extended payment timetable. The BLO Defendants were required to pay the adjudication building liability order within 14 days of hand-down (paragraph 43).

Interest and Costs

Crest was entitled to interest at the undisputed rate of 5% from 5 September 2025. It was also awarded 100% of its costs, to be assessed if not agreed (paragraphs 44-49).

7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points

Appeals Against Discretionary Decisions

An appeal against a discretionary evaluation requires an identifiable legal or procedural error, reliance on an irrelevant matter, failure to consider a relevant matter, or a decision outside the broad range of reasonable outcomes. Repeating the first-instance argument is not enough (paragraphs 5-7).

Adjudication Debts and Building Liability Orders

An adjudicator's decision creates an existing liability capable of transmission through a building liability order. Its possible later revision does not prevent the statutory jurisdiction from arising when the order is made, though its interim character may bear on discretion (paragraph 10).

Stay Requires Evidence of the Financial Reality

A corporate applicant relying on inability to pay must address funds available from its owner or another closely associated person, not only its own cash. The court tests the underlying financial reality and expects clear, supported and consistent evidence (paragraphs 19 and 23-33).

Pay Now, Argue Later

There is a strong presumption against staying enforcement of an adjudicator's decision. A commercial judgment debtor must show an exceptional reason, such as manifest injustice, before the court will withhold immediate enforcement or allow a long instalment arrangement (paragraphs 16-22 and 34-43).

Practice Implications

For Claimants:
A party enforcing an adjudication debt through a building liability order should preserve the distinction between the liability created by the adjudicator and its possible later revision. On a stay application, test every forecast, asset valuation and proposed facility against the underlying documents. Ask for evidence from owners or associated persons where their resources may be available.

For Defendants:
A request to stay execution requires a stable and fully evidenced financial account. Explain changes between forecasts, provide the lending and valuation documents, and address why owners or associated persons cannot fund payment. An intended appeal does not by itself displace the 14-day payment rule or the adjudication policy of immediate enforcement.

General Practice Points:
Consequential hearings can determine appeal permission, enforcement timing, interest and costs in one judgment. Parties should plead interest, but a late request may still be allowed if it causes no prejudice. A minor success on one issue will not necessarily justify a costs reduction where the opposing party succeeded on the application as a whole.

Legal Disclaimer

This interactive process flow is provided for educational and professional development purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content reflects interpretations and analyses that may not apply to specific circumstances. Contract interpretation depends on specific wording, jurisdiction, and factual context. Always consult qualified legal professionals before making decisions based on this content. SCCSI and its contributors accept no liability for reliance on this material.