Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd & Ors v Ardmore Construction Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC)

1. Introduction

This landmark judgment is the first detailed High Court authority on the operation of Building Liability Orders (BLOs) under ss.130–131 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA). It is only the second BLO ever granted by the High Court, and the first where the defendants were represented.

Crest sought two BLOs:

• An Anticipatory BLO — making Ardmore group companies jointly and severally liable for any future liability ACL may be found to owe under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA) or BSA.
• An Adjudication BLO — making those companies jointly and severally liable for the £14.9m adjudicator’s award relating to external wall defects.

Constable J granted both orders.

This judgment is a major development in the post‑Grenfell legal landscape.

2. Background

The case concerns 19 residential buildings at Admiralty Quarter, Portsmouth, constructed between 2007–2009 by Ardmore Construction Ltd (ACL) under a design‑and‑build contract.

Following Grenfell, investigations revealed:

• combustible EPS and phenolic insulation
• missing or defective cavity barriers
• missing fire‑resistant sheathing
• internal compartmentation failures
• car park fire separation defects

ACL participated in extensive pre‑action investigations and expert meetings.

The adjudication

Crest commenced adjudication in May 2025. ACL:

• challenged jurisdiction
• alleged natural justice breaches
• nevertheless participated fully

On 29 August 2025, the adjudicator awarded £14.9m, finding:

• breaches of Building Regulations
• breaches of the DPA
• dwellings unfit for habitation

ACL entered administration one day before the decision was issued.

The award remains unpaid.

3. ACL’s Administration and the Ardmore Group

Evidence showed that ACL’s insolvency was driven by:

• the BSA’s retrospective 30‑year limitation
• the scale of cladding liabilities
• over £100m already spent on remedial works
• the BDW v Ardmore (2024) judgment
• cash depletion and inability to meet imminent liabilities

The Ardmore group had undergone multiple restructurings since 2016, with the effect of isolating ACL’s historic liabilities. Ultimate control remained with Cormac Byrne and the Byrne Family Trust.

The BLO Defendants accepted they were “associates” under s.131 BSA.

4. The Legal Framework

Section 130 BSA

A BLO allows the High Court to impose joint and several liability on associated companies for:

• DPA liabilities
• liabilities arising from a building safety risk

The test is whether it is “just and equitable”.

Section 131 BSA

Defines “associates” broadly, including parent companies, subsidiaries, and entities under common control.

5. The Judge’s Seven Key Principles

Constable J distilled the following principles:

• The “just and equitable” test is broad and fact‑specific.
• The power is discretionary and must be exercised in light of the BSA’s purpose.
• The power includes anticipatory BLOs.
• The purpose of s.130 is to allow those responsible for defective work to be pursued through their associates — not limited to SPVs.
• The court should not create a closed list of factors.
• BLO applications should generally be case‑managed within the main proceedings.
• Timing is a case management issue: a BLO may be granted before, during, or after trial, provided it is just and equitable at the time of the order.

These principles are now the leading guidance for all future BLO applications.

6. Issue 1 — Is an adjudicator’s decision a “relevant liability”?

Yes.

Constable J held that:

• adjudicator’s decisions are binding unless successfully challenged
• nothing in the BSA excludes adjudication
• adjudication and BLOs can operate together
• the court can determine the existence of a relevant liability within the BLO application itself
• summary judgment is not required

This is a major development: adjudication can now be used as a gateway to BLO enforcement.

7. Issue 2 — Did the adjudicator have jurisdiction?

Yes.

The judge held:

• adjudicators do have jurisdiction to determine DPA claims (following BDW v Ardmore)
• the adjudicator had jurisdiction to award sums to Crest Nicholson Operations Limited as Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited (First Claimant) undisclosed principal
• even if wrong, the award to CNR could be severed

The jurisdiction challenge failed.

8. Issue 3 — Is it “just and equitable” to grant the BLOs?

Yes — for both the anticipatory and adjudication BLOs.

Constable J relied on the following key findings:

• ACL is insolvent and cannot satisfy any judgment.
• ACL entered administration because of cladding liabilities.
• ACL is part of the Ardmore Group, which includes the BLO Defendants.
• The group was restructured to ring‑fence ACL’s liabilities.
• Ultimate control rests with Cormac Byrne and/or the Byrne Family Trust.
• There is no real dispute that the Development contains building safety risks.
• There is no real doubt that ACL will be liable for those risks.
• ACL has long been aware of Crest’s claims.
• The BLO Defendants have long been aware of Crest’s claims.
• They received formal pre‑action letters and did not meaningfully engage.
• Cormac Byrne provided no evidence on the application.
• There is an unpaid adjudicator’s award for £14.9m.

Conclusion:

It is just and equitable that each of the BLO Defendants is jointly and severally liable for the sums owed by ACL under the Adjudicator’s Decision.

Anticipatory BLO

The judge also granted the anticipatory BLO, holding that:

• the court was confident the same order would be made after trial
• unresolved factual disputes did not prevent a BLO
• the statutory purpose supported early intervention

Post‑trial adjustment

The judge left open the possibility that:

• after trial, the BLO Defendants’ liability may be reduced
• based on relative blameworthiness or specified descriptions

This is an important nuance.

9. Industry Implications

For developers and building owners

• BLOs are now a powerful recovery tool.
• Adjudication can be used strategically to establish liabilities quickly.
• Group companies can be pursued even where the contractor is insolvent.

For contractors and corporate groups

• Historic restructurings will be scrutinised.
• Insolvency will not shield associated companies.
• Group‑wide exposure is now a real risk.

For insurers

• BLOs expand the pool of liable entities.
• Adjudication outcomes may trigger statutory liabilities.
• Group structures will be examined closely.

For the wider industry

• This case sets the framework for all future BLO applications.
• It signals a shift toward group accountability for building safety defects.
• It reinforces the central role of expert evidence in establishing building safety risks.

10. Conclusion

Crest Nicholson v Ardmore is a watershed judgment. It confirms:

• Adjudication decisions are relevant liabilities under the BSA
• Anticipatory BLOs are permissible
• Group companies can be made jointly and severally liable
• The “just and equitable” test is broad, purposive, and flexible
• Corporate restructuring will not defeat statutory protections

This case will shape the next decade of cladding and building safety litigation.

How can we support you?

If you have any queries in respect of this summary article or would like to know more about what I do at Novus Resolve, please contact me at: neil.forte@novusresolve.com