Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd & Ors v Ardmore Construction Ltd (In Administration) & Ors
Introduction
On 1 April 2026 the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) handed down its judgment in the case of Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd & Ors v Ardmore Construction Ltd (In Administration) & Ors [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC).
This judgment is important as it gives significant judicial guidance on the practical application of the Building Liability Order (BLO) regime contained within S.130-132 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) and when a BLO can be ordered by the court.
Below, we look at the key issues and outcomes arising from the judgment.
Background
Crest Nicholson (Crest) brought proceedings against Ardmore Construction Limited (Ardmore) relating to the construction of a group of 19 residential apartment buildings (Properties) in Plymouth between 2007 and 2009 under a JCT D&B Contract dated 13 December 2005 (Contract).
Investigations on the Properties were carried out in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017 which revealed that there were several significant building safety defects to consider: combustible materials had been used, fire barriers were missing or inadequate and the external wall systems were not fit for purpose.
On 29 August 2025 Crest were successfully awarded approximately £14.9 million after an adjudication against Ardmore. The Adjudicator found that Ardmore was in breach of both the Contract and S.1(1)(a) of the Defective Premises Act 1972. The day before the Adjudicator’s Decision was issued, Ardmore went into administration.
Prior to Ardmore’s administration, Ardmore Construction Group Limited (ACGL) was incorporated in March 2025 and became the parent company for Ardmore as part of a restructuring. Control of ACGL at all of the relevant times rested with Cormac Byrne, whose shares were vested in a family trust via a newly incorporated holding company, Ardmore Construction Holdings Limited (ACHL).
Following the Adjudicator’s decision, Crest sought both:
- An ‘anticipatory’ BLO against the Fourth to Tenth Defendants in the case (including both ACGL and ACHL) in respect of any liability that Ardmore might be found to have in respect of the fire safety defects to the Properties; and
- an ‘adjudication’ BLO against the Fourth to Tenth Defendants which would make them liable to pay Crest the £14.9 million awarded to them by the Adjudicator.
An anticipatory BLO is a new concept. It is that a BLO could be ordered by a court against an associate or group of associates of a defendant company in advance of formal liability for the relevant building safety defects being established.
Crest also sought clarification from the TCC on whether the adjudication decision could give rise to a ‘relevant liability’ under S.130(3) of the BSA, which forms the basis of liability under which the court can grant a BLO.
A previous article by Andrew Pratten in the Michelmores Construction and Engineering teams sets out the provisions of the BLO regime under the BSA, and the concept of ‘relevant liability’ in further detail. Building safety update – where are we now? An overview of recent developments.
Judgment
The TCC granted Crest both an anticipatory and an adjudication BLO against Ardmore and the other Defendants.
On the decision to grant an anticipatory BLO, the TCC held that it was highly likely that Ardmore would be found liable for the fire safety defects at the Properties, and that the Defendant companies were ‘associates’ of Ardmore as defined under S.131 of the BSA and could therefore share Ardmore’s liability. As Ardmore had been placed into administration to protect the wider group of companies, the TCC held that it was just and equitable for a BLO to be granted in anticipation of a likely finding of liability for Ardmore.
On the decision to grant an adjudication BLO, the TCC held that the Adjudicator’s decision did create a ‘relevant liability’ under S.130(3) of the BSA. The TCC further held that Adjudication’s status as an interim remedy for parties in construction disputes did not prevent the court from making a BLO in response to this.
Impact
There are several key takeaways for practitioners and industry professionals following the TCC’s decision, particularly in relation to the BLO regime under the BSA and how this will apply in future practice:
- Anticipatory BLOs are available to companies seeking an indemnity from a parent company or wider group of companies as an ‘associate’ under the BSA in advance of liability against the original company for building safety defects being established.
- The test for whether ordering a BLO would be ‘just and equitable’ is broad and is to be reviewed by the courts on a case-by-case basis.
- Adjudication decisions can create a ‘relevant liability’ under the BSA which can give rise to a BLO being ordered.
Conclusion
This judgment has established the strength of the BLO regime under the BSA, and has removed several obstacles which practitioners might have faced in disputes by ruling that anticipatory BLOs are available and that adjudication decisions create a ‘relevant liability’ for the purpose of ordering a BLO.
Practitioners should consider the impact of this case on future matters involving building safety defects and groups of companies with great care, as it is now far easier for a claiming party to establish that a BLO should be ordered against an associated company where it is just and equitable to do so.
If you need advice on seeking or defending a claim for a BLO or have any queries regarding the impact of the BSA more widely, please contact Ashley Pigott or Andrew Pratten in the Michelmores Construction & Engineering team.
This article is not legal advice and should not be relied upon or construed as such.
