The decision of Mr Justice Constable in Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd (in administration) and others [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC) is the most significant High Court authority to date on Building Liability Orders (“BLOs”) under the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA 2022”).
The judgment provides the first detailed judicial analysis of how BLOs operate in a fully contested hearing and confirms that they are a powerful mechanism for extending liability beyond the original contracting entity to associated companies within the same corporate group.
For developers, freeholders and others who have incurred substantial remediation costs, the decision strengthens the available routes to recovery. For contractors and corporate groups, it is a clear warning that liabilities arising from historic building safety defects may not be contained within an insolvent or asset-poor subsidiary.
What is a Building Liability Order?
Sections 130 and 131 of the BSA 2022 empower the High Court to make a Building Liability Order where:
- A company has incurred a “relevant liability” relating to a specified building; and
- It is just and equitable to extend that liability to one or more associated companies.
A “relevant liability” includes liabilities arising:
- under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972;
- as a result of a “building safety risk”, namely a risk to the safety of people in or about a building arising from the spread of fire or structural failure.
Associated companies include parent companies, subsidiaries and sister companies under common control. The regime was introduced to address a recurring problem in the construction industry: the use of thinly capitalised project companies which, once a development is complete, may have little or no ability to meet substantial defect claims.
Importantly, there is debate among commentators and courts about the precise characterisation of BLOs. The statutory mechanism allows the court, where justice and equity require, to extend liability to associated entities — a significant departure from the ordinary principle of separate corporate personality. Whether this constitutes “piercing the corporate veil” in the traditional sense is contested: some courts and commentators treat BLOs as a distinct statutory remedy rather than classic veil-piercing, on the basis that the court is not disregarding the corporate structure but rather applying a legislative override. Others characterise the practical effect as functionally equivalent to piercing the veil. The distinction matters less in practice than the statutory test itself, which turns on whether it is just and equitable to extend liability.
The Factual Background
The claim concerned Admiralty Quarter, a substantial residential development in Portsmouth completed between 2007 and 2009. The works were carried out by ACL under the JCT 1998 Standard Form of Building Contract with Contractor’s Design.
Crest Nicholson engaged Ardmore Construction Ltd (“ACL”) as design and build contractor. Following post-Grenfell investigations, Crest alleged extensive fire safety defects in both the external wall systems and internal fire compartmentation.
Crest commenced adjudication in relation to the external wall defects. On 29 August 2025, the adjudicator held that ACL had breached both its contractual obligations and its duties under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 and awarded Crest approximately £14.9 million.
The day before the adjudicator’s decision was issued, ACL entered administration. Constable J accepted, for the purposes of the application, that the timing of the administration was coincidental. However, on the evidence before him, the decision to place ACL into administration was driven wholly or in significant part by its exposure to cladding and building safety claims following Grenfell.
Faced with an unpaid adjudication award and an insolvent contractor, Crest sought BLOs against associated companies within the Ardmore group. Crest sought two forms of relief:
- The anticipatory BLO: An order providing that any liability ACL might ultimately be found to owe under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 or arising from a building safety risk would also be the joint and several liability of the associated companies.
- The adjudication BLO: An order making the associated companies jointly and severally liable for the £14.9 million awarded in the adjudication.
The Court’s Decision
The Court granted both orders and in doing so resolved several important questions concerning the scope of section 130.
1. Anticipatory BLOs are available
The Court held that section 130 does not require the original company’s liability to have been finally established before a BLO can be made. The Court may therefore order in advance that, if the original company is ultimately found liable, associated companies will also be liable.
Constable J endorsed the obiter observations of HHJ Keyser KC in BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd [2025] EWHC 434 (TCC) and held that such an order may be convenient both for claimants and for associated companies, who then know where they stand while the substantive litigation proceeds.
2. An adjudicator’s decision can constitute a “relevant liability”
The defendants argued that an adjudicator’s decision should not qualify because it is only temporarily binding. The Court rejected that argument. Although an adjudicator’s decision may later be reopened in litigation or arbitration, it creates an immediately enforceable legal obligation. That was sufficient to amount to a “relevant liability” under section 130.
This is one of the most important aspects of the judgment. It means that a successful adjudication may now be used as the basis for extending liability to associated companies.
3. The “just and equitable” test is broad and fact-sensitive
The Court emphasised that the statutory test is deliberately wide and resists rigid categorisation. Relevant factors included:
- ACL’s insolvency;
- the fact that ACL was unable to satisfy any judgment;
- the wider group restructuring undertaken to isolate historic liabilities;
- the common ownership and control of the group by Cormac Byrne and the Byrne Family Trust;
- the strong prima facie case that serious building safety defects existed; and
- the legislative purpose of ensuring that those responsible for defects bear the cost of remediation.
The Court was also influenced by the high degree of confidence that ACL would ultimately be found liable in some measure for the building safety defects.
4. Partial BLOs are permissible
Constable J confirmed that a BLO need not mirror the entirety of the underlying liability. The Court may impose liability for only part of the relevant liability where that is what justice and equity require. This flexibility may be particularly important in more complex disputes involving multiple defendants or disputed apportionment.
Why the Decision Matters
For developers, freeholders and management companies
The judgment significantly improves the prospects of recovery where the primary contractor is insolvent. A claimant who has funded remedial works is no longer confined to pursuing the original contracting company. If the statutory criteria are met, liability may be extended to solvent associated companies.
The combination of adjudication and BLOs is especially powerful:
- The claimant obtains a relatively swift adjudication decision.
- The contracting company fails to pay.
- The claimant seeks a BLO against associated companies.
- The adjudication award becomes enforceable against the wider group.
This creates a potent enforcement route.
For leaseholders
Leaseholders cannot themselves apply for BLOs unless they have an independent cause of action falling within section 130. Their more direct statutory remedy is usually a Remediation Contribution Order under section 124 BSA 2022.
Nevertheless, Crest Nicholson is likely to benefit leaseholders indirectly. Where freeholders, management companies or developers are able to recover remediation costs from solvent associated companies, there is less practical pressure for those costs to be borne by leaseholders, whether through service charges or protracted disputes over funding.
For contractors and construction groups
The decision is a significant expansion of risk. Many construction groups historically sought to isolate liabilities within operating subsidiaries. Crest Nicholson confirms that those structures may offer limited protection where building safety liabilities arise. Groups should now review:
- legacy projects involving residential developments;
- corporate structures;
- insurance arrangements;
- contingent liabilities; and
- financial disclosures.
For lenders, insurers and investors
The case underlines the need for careful due diligence. Historic building safety exposure may extend beyond the immediate contracting entity to the wider corporate group, regardless of how corporate structures have been arranged.
Relationship with earlier authorities
Crest Nicholson builds on a growing body of case law under Part 5 of the BSA 2022, including:
- Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership;
- 381 Southwark Park Road RTM Co Ltd v Click St Andrews Ltd;
- Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd v Prater;
- BDW Trading Ltd v URS Corporation Ltd; and
- BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd [2025] EWHC 434 (TCC) (HHJ Keyser KC) and [2024] EWHC 3235 (TCC) (Joanna Smith J) — two separate proceedings involving the same parties, addressing respectively information orders under section 132 and the adjudicator’s jurisdiction to determine DPA claims.
Together, these authorities demonstrate the courts’ willingness to interpret the Building Safety Act 2022 purposively to ensure that those responsible for historical building safety defects bear the financial consequences.
Looking ahead
The Ardmore defendants have indicated an intention to appeal. Given the significance of the issues, further appellate guidance is likely. Unless overturned, Crest Nicholson will become the leading authority on Building Liability Orders.
Conclusion
Crest Nicholson v Ardmore confirms that Building Liability Orders are not merely a theoretical remedy. They are a practical and effective tool that enables the High Court to look beyond an insolvent contracting entity and impose liability on associated companies where it is just and equitable to do so.
For those seeking to recover the cost of remediating unsafe buildings, the decision is a substantial development. For contractors and corporate groups, it is a clear reminder that the financial consequences of historical building safety defects may extend across the entire corporate structure.
