Building Liability Orders: enforcement risks after Crest v Ardmore 

The High Court’s decisions in Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd (in administration) [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC) and the subsequent refusal of permission to appeal [2026] EWHC 1069 (TCC) confirm that Building Liability Orders (BLOs) are a powerful and practical enforcement tool. Once made, they will be difficult to challenge or delay. 

For property litigators, the case highlights a shift in approach to recovery, group liability and insolvency risk in building safety disputes. 

A landmark development in the BLO regime 

Crest v Ardmore is the first fully contested authority to consider in detail how BLOs operate in practice under sections 130–131 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA). The court adopted a purposive and expansive approach, consistent with the statutory aim of ensuring that the cost of remedying building safety defects is borne by those responsible. 

The decisions confirm that the court is willing to look beyond the original contracting entity and impose liability across a corporate group, where it is just and equitable to do so. In practical terms, traditional reliance on separate corporate personality will not necessarily prevent liability being extended. 

Background: defects, adjudication and insolvency 

Crest engaged Ardmore Construction Ltd as design and build contractor for a residential development comprising 19 apartment buildings. Post‑Grenfell investigations identified serious fire safety defects in the external wall systems, including the use of combustible materials. 

Crest pursued adjudication under both the building contract and the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA). The adjudicator found in Crest’s favour, concluding that the defects breached both Building Regulations and Ardmore’s statutory duties, and awarded approximately £14.9 million. 

Ardmore did not pay and subsequently entered administration following a group restructuring. Crest therefore sought to enforce its position by applying for a BLO against associated companies within the Ardmore group, combining: 

• an order imposing liability for the adjudicator’s award; and 

• an anticipatory BLO addressing further potential liabilities arising from the defects. 

Anticipatory BLOs: early protection of recovery 

A central issue was whether a BLO can be granted before liability is finally determined. The court held that there is nothing in the BSA requiring prior determination of liability, confirming that anticipatory BLOs are available. 

In substance, such orders operate as a form of contingent statutory indemnity, fixing associated entities with responsibility if liability is established elsewhere. 

For property litigators, this is particularly significant. In building safety disputes, delay can materially affect recoverability, especially where projects are held in special purpose vehicles or asset-light companies. The ability to secure relief early allows claimants to protect their position against asset dissipation or restructuring before trial. 

Adjudication as a “relevant liability” 

The court also confirmed that an adjudicator’s decision, although only temporarily binding, can constitute a “relevant liability” for the purposes of section 130 BSA. The obligation to comply with an adjudication award is an immediately enforceable legal liability, even if it may later be revisited. 

This point is of clear strategic importance. It allows claimants to combine: 

• adjudication, as a rapid means of establishing liability; with 

• BLOs, as a mechanism to enforce that liability across a wider corporate group. 

In practice, this significantly enhances recovery options and enables pressure to be applied at an early stage in proceedings. 

“Just and equitable”: substance over form 

The court’s approach to the “just and equitable” test is one of the most important aspects of the decision. It confirmed that the assessment is broad, fact-sensitive and must be applied consistently with the purpose of the BSA. 

In this case, relevant factors included: 

• the insolvency of the contracting entity and its inability to meet the adjudication award; 

• the group restructuring undertaken, which had the effect of isolating liabilities; 

• the common ownership and control of the relevant entities; and 

• the strong prima facie case that serious building safety defects existed. 

The court took a sceptical view of attempts to ringfence liabilities within an undercapitalised entity, emphasising that insolvency will not prevent the court from looking to the wider group where justice requires it. 

For property litigators, the message is clear: in building safety cases, the court will focus on economic reality rather than corporate form when assessing liability. 

Appeal and enforcement: a high threshold 

The defendants sought permission to appeal on multiple grounds. Mr Justice Constable refused permission, reiterating that BLOs involve a discretionary assessment and that appellate courts will only intervene where a decision is “plainly wrong”. 

The defendants were unable to meet that threshold. Their grounds largely sought to revisit arguments already addressed at first instance. 

The court also refused a stay of execution. It applied the well-established presumption against delaying enforcement, particularly where the judgment enforces an adjudicator’s award between commercial parties. 

Crucially, the defendants failed to demonstrate an inability to pay. Their financial evidence was inconsistent and incomplete, and no evidence was provided from the ultimate beneficial owner. The court assessed resources across the wider group and those controlling it, not just the named defendants. 

Interest, costs and practical exposure 

The court confirmed that a BLO attaches to the underlying liability, including interest accruing from the date of the adjudicator’s decision, rather than the date of the order. Crest was also awarded its costs in full. 

These findings underline the financial consequences of BLOs, which can extend significantly beyond the headline liability. 

Insolvency risk and enforcement strategy 

Following the judgment, a number of Ardmore group companies entered administration. This illustrates a tension at the heart of the BLO regime. 

While BLOs are intended to improve recoverability by extending liability, they may also contribute to financial distress within corporate groups, particularly where historic liabilities are substantial. 

For claimants, early use of adjudication and BLOs may maximise recovery before assets are diminished. However, there is a risk that enforcement action may ultimately lead to reduced returns if it precipitates insolvency. 

For defendants, the decision makes clear that group structures will be closely scrutinised, and that liability may extend well beyond the original contracting entity. 

Looking ahead 

An important issue remains unresolved: whether liabilities arising under the Defective Premises Act 1972 can independently support a BLO. This is currently being considered at appellate level and will be of particular relevance in residential defect litigation. 

The Birketts view 

Crest v Ardmore establishes BLOs as a practical and far-reaching enforcement mechanism within the building safety regime. The court has confirmed that they may be used flexibly, applied early, and enforced robustly. 

For property litigators, the decision signals a clear shift. Recovery strategies must now account for group-wide exposure, the tactical use of adjudication, and the risk of insolvency. Equally, those advising corporate groups will need to consider carefully how historic liabilities are structured and managed in light of the court’s willingness to look beyond formal corporate boundaries. 

As the law continues to develop, BLOs are likely to remain central to the resolution of building safety disputes and the allocation of responsibility for remediation costs.