TCC strengthens the reach of the Building Safety Act – Crest v Ardmore
The Technology and Construction Court has handed down another significant decision concerning the expanding scope of the Building Safety Act 2022 in Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd & Ors v Ardmore Construction Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC). The judgment follows the earlier substantive decision in which the Court granted both an anticipatory Building Liability Order (“BLO”) and an Adjudication BLO against associated Ardmore group companies.
The decision is important for contractors, developers, group companies and insolvency practitioners alike, as it continues the judicial trend of interpreting the Building Safety Act broadly in order to maximise routes of recovery for parties facing historic building safety defects.
Background to the Dispute
The underlying dispute arose following an adjudicator’s decision requiring Ardmore Construction Limited, which had entered administration, to pay Crest Nicholson approximately £14.9 million. Crest subsequently sought Building Liability Orders under sections 130 and 131 of the Building Safety Act 2022 against several associated Ardmore entities within the wider corporate structure.
In the earlier judgment, the Court concluded that it was just and equitable to impose liability upon those associated entities. The present judgment dealt with consequential matters including permission to appeal, applications for a stay of execution, time to pay, interest and costs.
Adjudicators’ Awards Can Constitute a “Relevant Liability”
One of the most significant aspects of the decision is the Court’s confirmation that an adjudicator’s award is capable of constituting a “relevant liability” for the purposes of the Building Safety Act. The BLO Defendants argued that adjudication decisions are temporary in nature and therefore should not qualify. The Court rejected that argument and confirmed that an adjudicator’s decision creates a present legal liability capable of transmission to associated companies under the BLO regime.
The judgment is likely to be viewed as an important development in the relationship between adjudication enforcement and the Building Safety Act. In practical terms, the Court has reinforced that the “pay now, argue later” principle underpinning adjudication will not be undermined simply because the original contracting entity is insolvent or financially distressed where associated entities may properly fall within the scope of the Act.
Anticipatory Building Liability Orders Remain Available
The Court also reaffirmed that anticipatory BLOs are permissible. The Defendants argued that the Court should not make BLOs before final determination of liability and quantum at trial. However, the Court held that such an interpretation would significantly undermine the purpose of the legislation.
The Building Safety Act was intended to provide effective recovery mechanisms against associated entities responsible for historical building safety defects, and the Court considered that restricting BLOs only to finally determined liabilities would frustrate that purpose.
Stay of Execution Refused
The judgment further demonstrates the Court’s continued robust approach to applications seeking to resist enforcement of adjudication-related liabilities. The BLO Defendants sought a stay of execution and additional time to pay, asserting financial difficulties and potential insolvency consequences.
The Court was highly critical of the financial evidence advanced, identifying inconsistencies in cash flow forecasts, property valuations and funding arrangements. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Defendants had failed to demonstrate any genuine inability to pay.
Importantly, the Court reiterated established TCC enforcement principles that financial difficulty alone will rarely justify a stay of execution. The judgment reinforces the longstanding position that successful parties in adjudication should generally not be deprived of the immediate benefit of enforcement absent truly exceptional circumstances.
Interest Recoverable Under a Building Liability Order
The Court also confirmed that liability under a BLO extends to interest accruing on the underlying liability. Crest Nicholson was therefore entitled to recover interest on the unpaid adjudication award in addition to the principal sum itself.
A Further Expansion of the Building Safety Act
Whilst permission to appeal was refused, the Court acknowledged the broader significance of the issues raised by the case, particularly concerning anticipatory BLOs and the interaction between adjudication liabilities and the Building Safety Act regime.
The judgment nevertheless reflects the Court’s clear view that the statutory purpose of the Building Safety Act requires a practical and commercially effective approach to enforcement and recovery.
The case is likely to become another important authority in the rapidly developing body of Building Safety Act jurisprudence and serves as a further warning that associated group entities may face substantial exposure where building safety liabilities arise within a wider corporate structure.
How CCC Can Help
At Contract & Construction Consultants (Southern) Limited, we regularly advise contractors, subcontractors, developers and consultants on adjudication enforcement, payment disputes, insolvency-related recovery issues and claims arising under the Building Safety Act 2022.
Our team can assist with adjudication strategy, enforcement proceedings, jurisdiction challenges, contractual risk allocation and recovery options. We also advise on proactive contract administration and dispute avoidance measures aimed at reducing exposure to future claims. If you require assistance in relation to adjudication, enforcement proceedings or construction disputes generally, please contact our team for an initial consultation.
