Building Liability Orders: First fully contested judgment on BLOs delivers clarity

The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has handed down the first fully contested judgment on Building Liability Orders (BLOs) since their introduction, in Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited & Ors v Ardmore Construction Limited & Ors. It marks a groundbreaking development in the operation of the BLO regime under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022), and provides the industry with much-needed clarity on when and how the court will extend liability for building safety defects to associated companies within a corporate group. For developers, contractors and funders, the case significantly reshapes how building safety risks can be enforced and managed in practice.

What is a Building Liability Order?

BLOs were introduced by the BSA 2022 as a mechanism to extend liability for building safety defects from the original company responsible (eg, the developer or the contractor) to one or more associated companies, making those entities jointly and severally liable, where it is just and equitable to do so.  They are designed to prevent developers or contractors avoiding liability through shell companies or SPVs with limited assets, or complex group structures.

In practical terms, BLOs are intended to ensure that responsibility for serious building safety defects rests with those who ultimately stand behind development and construction activity, rather than being lost through insolvency or corporate structuring.

In order to grant a BLO, the following grounds must be satisfied:

• There must be a relevant liability under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972), the Building Act 1984 (although the relevant section has never been brought fully into effect), or as a result of a building safety risk;
• The company to which liability is extended must be associated with the original company – eg a parent, subsidiary or sister company; and
• The court must consider it to be just and equitable to extend liability in this way.

Background to the case: Adjudication

The case arose out of serious fire safety defects discovered at a large residential development known as Admiralty Quarter in Portsmouth. The development was constructed between 2007 and 2009 by Ardmore Construction Ltd under a design and build contract with Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd.  Following post‑Grenfell investigations, significant defects were identified across the development.  This led to Crest Nicholson commencing an adjudication against Ardmore for breaches of the DPA 1972 and Building Regulations.  Crest Nicholson was ultimately awarded c. £14.9 million by the adjudicator. However, Ardmore entered administration, leaving the award unpaid and effectively unenforceable.  

Crest’s next move

Following Ardmore’s administration, Crest Nicholson brought proceedings in the TCC, seeking two BLOs, thereby extending liability for the building safety defects at Admiralty Quarter to others within the Ardmore group.

Crest applied for two types of BLO:

1. An “anticipatory” BLO

Crest asked the court to order that, if Ardmore were ultimately found liable to Crest, that liability should also be the joint and several liability of other associated Ardmore group companies (the BLO Defendants).

2. An “adjudication” BLO

Crest also asked the court to order that those same BLO Defendants be jointly and severally liable for the £14.9 million awarded by the adjudicator.

Both applications were resisted by the BLO Defendants, who argued that:  

• It would be premature and unfair to impose an anticipatory BLO before Ardmore’s liability had been determined at trial;
• The adjudicator’s decision was only temporarily binding and did not constitute a “relevant liability” for the purposes of s130 of the BSA 2022;  
• The adjudicator lacked jurisdiction; and  
• It would not be just and equitable to impose an adjudication BLO.

Key legal issues

At the heart of the case were two novel questions:

1. Can an “anticipatory” BLO be made before liability has been finally established?
2. Can an adjudicator’s decision constitute a “relevant liability” under the BSA 2022?

In determining both issues, the court was also required to consider how the “just and equitable” test should be applied in practice, particularly where the original contracting party is insolvent and liability is sought to be extended to non‑contracting companies within the same corporate group.

The court’s decision

Having weighed all relevant factors, the court concluded that it was just and equitable to grant both BLO applications, making each of the BLO Defendants jointly and severally liable alongside Ardmore.  

The court held that it had jurisdiction to make an anticipatory BLO. Rejecting arguments that such an order was premature, the TCC confirmed that BLOs can be granted before a final determination of liability.

The court also held that an adjudicator’s decision constitutes a “relevant liability”, and as such, liability to pay sums awarded by an adjudicator could be extended by way of a BLO. While recognising that adjudication decisions are only temporarily binding, the court held that they give rise to enforceable liabilities unless and until overturned, and that excluding them from s130 of the BSA 2022 (which deals with BLOs) would undermine both the adjudication regime and the BSA 2022.

Why this case is important

While adjudication has long been a cornerstone of construction dispute resolution, its effectiveness can be limited where the responding party is a SPV or a company with limited assets. This limitation can be particularly pronounced in the context of post-Grenfell cladding claims, where the losses involved can be substantial.

While BLOs were intended to address the risk of insolvency, limited assets and complex group structures, until Crest Nicholson v Ardmore, it had not been tested whether they could be used as a way of securing payment of adjudicator’s awards.

The decision provides important confirmation that BLOs are a real and effective remedy, and can be deployed as part of an adjudication strategy.

• The judgment confirms that BLOs can be deployed on the basis of a temporarily binding adjudicator’s decision, notwithstanding the fact that the dispute has not been finally determined by litigation or arbitration.
• It also establishes that an unpaid adjudication award may itself form the basis for a BLO – a significant finding that makes adjudication a more powerful tool in building safety disputes.

The decision demonstrates the courts’ willingness to use the BSA 2022 robustly to deliver substantive justice and meet the objectives of the legislation.

More broadly, the court's decision makes clear that insolvency and corporate restructuring will not, of themselves, shield group companies from liability where it is just and equitable to impose it.  Taken together, these findings make it significantly harder for corporate groups to use restructuring or administration to escape responsibility for historic building safety defects – and send a strong signal to the industry about the reach of the BSA 2022's enforcement mechanisms.

Practical takeaways

This decision has wide-ranging implications across the construction and real estate sector. For developers, contractors, landlords and funders alike, Crest Nicholson v Ardmore sends a clear message about how building safety liabilities can be pursued.  

The key takeaways are:

1. Contractor insolvency need not be the end of the road

Where a contractor is part of a wider corporate group, a BLO can be used to hold associated companies jointly and severally liable for the contractor’s obligations. Claimants should identify the full corporate structure of their contractor as early as possible.

2. You do not have to wait for a full trial

The court confirmed that an "anticipatory" BLO can be granted before liability against the original contractor has been established at trial.  This means that claimants will not have to bear the cost of pursuing an insolvent contractor prior to seeking a BLO.

3. Adjudication can be a powerful stepping stone

The adjudicator’s decision can be considered a “relevant liability” for the purposes of the BSA 2022.  

4. Corporate restructuring is not a guaranteed shield

Corporate groups that restructure in response to building safety exposure should not assume that they will be protected from liability. Structures designed to ring‑fence risk will be examined closely and may be overcome where it is just and equitable to do so.  This represents a rare example of courts being willing to pierce the corporate veil.

5. Early strategic advice is critical

For developers, landlords and funders, the case highlights the importance of early legal advice to assess recovery options. For contractors and corporate groups, it underlines the need for proactive risk assessment and governance around historic projects and building safety claims.

For all participants in the construction and real estate sector, Crest Nicholson v Ardmore underlines that building safety risk is a live, enforceable and potentially group‑wide issue requiring early, informed and strategic legal engagement.

Authors: Rebecca McQuaid and Katherine Doran

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at May 2026. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.