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 and Others v Ardmore Construction Limited (in Administration) and Others
[2026] EWHC 789 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court
Before Mr Justice Constable | Heard 2 to 4 March 2026 | Handed down 1 April 2026
Interactive Process Flow | Anticipatory and adjudication building liability orders
Case Analysis Process Flow
0 of 7 nodes explored
1. Case Overview
+
Case: Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited and Others v Ardmore Construction Limited (in Administration) and Others [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court
Judge: Mr Justice Constable
Hearing Date: 2 to 4 March 2026
Judgment Date: 1 April 2026
Case No: HT-2022-000295

Crest sought building liability orders against companies associated with Ardmore Construction Limited, which was in administration, in proceedings concerning extensive fire-safety defects at Admiralty Quarter. It sought an anticipatory order for any liability later established and an immediate order for about £14.9 million awarded in an adjudication (paragraphs 1-6).

Central Legal Test: Sections 130 and 131 of the Building Safety Act 2022 required a relevant liability of an associated body corporate and a finding that extending it was just and equitable. The court also decided whether an adjudicator's decision or the obligation to comply with it was a relevant liability, and addressed jurisdiction and enforcement objections (paragraphs 2-6 and 214).
Development and Defects
+
The claim concerned 19 residential buildings at Admiralty Quarter, with alleged combustible insulation, missing or defective cavity and fire barriers, and other external and internal fire-safety defects (paragraphs 7-11).
Insolvent Contractor
+
Ardmore Construction Limited, the design-and-build contractor, entered administration. The other defendants accepted that they were associates for section 131 purposes (paragraphs 1 and 4).
Two Orders Sought
+
Crest sought an anticipatory order for eventual Defective Premises Act or building-safety-risk liability and an order attaching the £14.9 million adjudication award to the associates (paragraphs 2-3).
2. Procedural History
+
Underlying Trial Pending
+
Liability for the pleaded defects remained factually and legally disputed in the consolidated main proceedings, prompting the prematurity objection to the anticipatory order (paragraphs 1-6).
Adjudication
+
An adjudicator decided on 29 August 2025 that about £14.9 million was due from Ardmore. The associates disputed whether that decision could support a building liability order and raised jurisdiction points (paragraphs 3-4).
3. Defendant's Position
+

The associated companies said the anticipatory order was premature and unjust before trial. They argued that adjudication liability was not a relevant liability, enforcement was not properly before the court, jurisdiction was arguable and interim payment would be inequitable (paragraph 4).

Prematurity
+
The defendants said factual disputes about the defects, contractual parties and responsibility had to be tried before the just-and-equitable discretion could be exercised.
Adjudication Objections
+
They relied on the temporary nature of adjudication, alleged jurisdiction problems, cash-flow and remedial-scheme concerns, inequality of arms and possible mismatch between the award and the final claim (paragraphs 188-213).
4. Claimant's Position
+

Crest said the statutory regime could protect recovery before final judgment, and that the group restructuring, insolvency position and non-payment justified making the associates answer both eventual relevant liability and the adjudication award.

Group Responsibility
+
Crest relied on the accepted association, the contractor's administration and evidence about group assets, liabilities and financial transparency.
Adjudication Liability
+
It said the statutory and contractual obligation to comply with an enforceable adjudicator's decision arose from the building-safety defects and fell within section 130.
Just and Equitable
+
Crest argued that the associates had known of the dispute and made commercial choices about isolating Ardmore's liabilities, so the statutory discretion should prevent the group structure defeating recovery.
5. Court's Analysis
+
Anticipatory Jurisdiction
+
The legislation permits an order framed by reference to a relevant liability ultimately established; a final quantified judgment is not an absolute jurisdictional prerequisite.
Adjudication Within the Regime
+
The obligation to comply with the adjudicator's decision was capable of being a relevant liability for building liability order purposes. The adjudication and Building Safety Act regimes were not inherently incompatible (paragraphs 150-171 and 187-194).
Jurisdiction Objections Rejected
+
The challenges concerning the contracting parties and scope of the adjudication did not prevent enforcement or the requested statutory order (paragraphs 172-187).
Commercial Choices
+
The associates had long known of the dispute and chose to ring-fence Ardmore's liabilities. Any reduced readiness for adjudication followed from those commercial decisions and did not make the order inequitable (paragraphs 206-208).
Financial and Quantum Points
+
Cash-flow, alternative remedial-scheme, award-detail and possible contribution issues carried little weight because they did not undermine enforceability and could be corrected at final trial if overpayment were shown (paragraphs 199-213).
6. Decision and Outcome
+
Winner: The Claimants and Applicants (Crest Nicholson group companies) succeeded.

Result: The court concluded that each associated defendant was jointly and severally liable for the sums owed by Ardmore under the adjudicator's decision. The judgment also determined the availability and proper approach to anticipatory building liability orders in the pending defect proceedings (paragraph 214). The Fourth to Tenth Defendants (Ardmore associated companies) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: Crest could pursue the solvent associated companies for the adjudication award notwithstanding Ardmore's administration, while the underlying defect liability remained subject to final determination.
Adjudication BLO
+
The associates were made jointly and severally liable for the adjudication sums (paragraph 214).
Interim Nature Preserved
+
Payment under the adjudication decision did not prevent correction at the final trial or repayment of any proved overpayment (paragraph 205).
Statutory Purpose Applied
+
The group structure and contractor insolvency did not prevent application of the Building Safety Act remedy.
7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points
+
Anticipatory Orders
+
A building liability order may address relevant liability that will be established later where the statutory association and just-and-equitable requirements are satisfied.
Adjudication Decisions
+
An enforceable obligation to comply with an adjudicator's decision can fall within the building liability order regime even though the decision is temporarily binding.
Just and Equitable
+
The discretion is fact-sensitive and may consider group control, restructuring, knowledge, insolvency and the commercial allocation or isolation of liabilities.
Pay Now, Argue Later
+
Extending interim adjudication liability does not convert it into final liability; final proceedings remain capable of correcting the account.
Practice Implications
+
For Claimants:
For a building liability order, prove the association, trace the relevant liability, and assemble evidence of group control, restructuring, assets and the practical effect of the contractor's insolvency.
For Defendants:
Address the just-and-equitable factors with transparent financial and corporate evidence. Jurisdiction and quantum objections must be tied to enforceability, not merely reserved for final trial.
General Practice Points:
Treat adjudication enforcement and building liability relief as potentially concurrent. An associate cannot assume that the temporary nature of an adjudication award puts it outside sections 130 and 131.
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.
This is a module from the Society of Construction Claims Specialists International's Construction Claims and Contracts Certification Programmes.
sccsinternational.org