The High Court’s decisions in Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd ([2026] EWHC 789 (TCC) (the BLO Application) and [2026] EWHC 1069 (TCC) (the Appeal Application) give the clearest guidance yet on how building liability orders (BLOs) under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) can be used – and confirms that the courts will use them robustly.
The message is straightforward: corporate structures and insolvency will not protect those responsible for historic building safety defects.
For developers, contractors, funders and insurers, these decisions materially increases risk exposure across corporate groups.
Developers, contractors and funders should reassess their exposure to historic building safety risk across their wider group (noting insolvency should not be assumed to be an effective risk‑management tool in building safety cases).
There is also opportunity. Adjudication has become a powerful mechanism in building safety disputes. A single adjudication award may now unlock group‑wide liability at speed. Parties should factor BLO risk into decisions about whether to adjudicate, defend or settle.
What is a BLO?
A BLO allows the High Court to transfer a building safety liability from one company to other associated companies within the same group, where it is just and equitable to do so.
Relevant liabilities include:
- claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972;
- liabilities under section 38 of the Building Act 1984; and
- liabilities arising from building safety risks, including fire safety defects.
The regime is deliberately broad and aimed at preventing liability being buried in insolvent or special purpose entities.
What is this case about?
Serious fire safety defects were discovered at the Admiralty Quarter development in Portsmouth, built between 2007 and 2009. Crest Nicholson group companies (the developer and long leaseholder) pursued claims against Ardmore Construction Limited (ACL), the design and build contractor. An adjudicator awarded Crest almost £15 million for breaches of the Defective Premises Act.
Crucially, ACL entered administration the day before the adjudicator’s decision was issued and did not pay the award.
Crest therefore applied to the High Court for BLOs against other companies in the Ardmore group. By the hearing date of the BLO Application, it was accepted that the other companies targeted were “associates” of ACL within the meaning of section 131 of the BSA, so this threshold issue was not in dispute.
The BLO Application: Two types of BLO sought
1. Anticipatory BLOs
Crest asked the Court to make orders now, so that if ACL is ultimately found liable at trial, other Ardmore group companies would automatically share that liability.
The Ardmore group argued this was premature and should wait until after trial.
The Court disagreed. The judge held that:
- BLOs can be granted before liability is finally determined.
- The key question is whether the Court has sufficient confidence that a BLO would ultimately be justified.
- Placing ACL into administration to avoid building safety liabilities, while lawful, was a relevant and telling factor.
The Court made anticipatory BLOs, ensuring liability could not be side‑stepped later.
2. Adjudication BLOs
Crest also sought BLOs to attach to the existing adjudication award.
The Ardmore group argued that adjudication decisions are only interim and should not trigger BLOs.
Again, the Court disagreed. The judge confirmed that:
- An adjudicator’s decision creates a binding liability, even if temporary.
- That liability is capable of being a “relevant liability” under the BSA.
- Whether it is just and equitable depends on the facts, but there is no legal bar to BLOs being granted on this basis.
BLOs were therefore granted in respect of the unpaid adjudication award.
The Appeal Application: Request to appeal to the Supreme Court denied
Shorlty after the BLO Application decision, Ardmore made an application regarding the decision. A key part of the application was whether Ardmore could appeal the BLO Application decision directly to the Supreme Court (rather than to the Court of Appeal).
Ardmore sought permission to appeal on the basis that a) the appeal had real prospects of success (and Ardmore had several arguments as to why), and b) there was a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
In relation to having real prospects of success, the High Court rejected all of Ardmore’s arguments, noting that there was no real prospect of demonstrating that the High Court’s exercise of discretion to determine it was just and equitable to order the BLOs was wrong.
In relation to any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, the High Court left that question to be determined by the Court of Appeal, concluding the question did not need to be elevated to the Supreme Court, particularly in the context of the Court’s determination that there were no real prospects of success for the appeal.
Why this matters?
This is the first fully contested case in which BLOs have actually been ordered, and it shows how powerful the regime is in practice.
A clear example of this is the Ardmore group, as part of the Appeal Application, placed great emphasis on its weak financial position and solvency risk when applying for a stay of execution to pay the BLO liabilities. The Court had little sympathy for this position, stating “were insolvency impending, the debtor must face the usual consequences of that impending fact”.
Key takeaways:
- Group structures offer limited protection against building safety claims: liability can be pushed well beyond the contracting entity.
- Insolvency is not a shield: even strategic or formal insolvency will not stop liability being reallocated.
- Adjudication is now a strategic lever: an adjudication award may unlock group‑wide liability far earlier than High Court litigation.
- Risk pricing is shifting: the judgment reinforces upward pressure on insurance availability and cost, particularly for historic defects, and is causing a number of exits from the market.
Overall, the decision confirms the Courts will interpret the BSA in line with Parliament’s intention: those responsible for building safety defects should pay to fix them.
If you would like to discuss what this decision means for potential or ongoing litigation, your projects, group structure or insurance position, please contact the authors.