Building Liability Orders Under the Building Safety Act 2022: What Crest v Ardmore Means for Adjudication and Building Safety Claims

Introduction

One of the key questions surrounding Building Liability Orders (BLOs) under the Building Safety Act 2022 is what the phrase “just and equitable” really means. Section 130 of the Building Safety Act (BSA) gives the High Court the power to make a BLO where it considers it “just and equitable to do so”. However, what counts as “just and equitable” has been widely debated in the construction industry, and there is still uncertainty about the factors the court will take into account.

A more recent and important issue, raised in Crest Homes Ltd v Ardmore [2026], is whether an adjudication decision can be used to establish “relevant liability” under section 130(3) of the BSA.

“relevant liability” for the purposes of section 130 of the BSA, is defined as a liability (whether arising before or after commencement of this section) that is incurred (i) under the Defective Premises Act 1972 or section 38 of the Building Safety Act 1984; or (ii) as a result of a building safety risk (which means a risk to the safety if people in or about the building arising from the spread of fire or structural failure).

This article looks at both of these issues, drawing on the court’s approach in Crest Homes v Ardmore, and considers what this means for those seeking a BLO, as well as those against whom a BLO is being sought.

The Parties

The case concerned multiple parties on both sides of the claimant and the defendant as listed below:

Claimants – Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited, Crest Nicholson (South) Limited, Crest Nicholson Operations Limited and Crest Nicholson PLC

Defendants– Ardmore Construction Limited (In Administration), David Richmond and Partners Limited, Yuanda (UK) Co. Limited, Ardmore Construction Group Limited, Ardmore Group Limited, Ardmore Group Holdings Limited, Paddington Construction Limited, Ardmore Fitout Limited, Celebration Homes Limited and Byrne Properties Limited.

Key issues

In this case, the claimants sought two forms of relief. Firstly, it applied for what it described as an “anticipatory” BLO against the fourth to tenth defendants (the BLO defendants) who were all associates of ACL for the purposes of section 130 of the BSA, in respect of any liability that ACL might ultimately be found to owe under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA) or arising from a building safety risk.

Secondly, the claimants sought what was termed an “adjudication BLO”, which would make the BLO defendants jointly and severally liable for the sum of £14.9 million awarded against ACL in an adjudication decision dated 29 August 2025.

The BLO defendants resisted both aspects of the application on the following grounds:

1. In relation to the anticipatory BLO, they argued that the court should not determine what is “just and equitable” without a full trial, and that, in any event, it would not presently be just and equitable to grant such an order.
2. In relation to the adjudication BLO, the defendants submitted that enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision was not properly before the court in these proceedings, and that an adjudicator’s decision, or any obligation arising from it, does not amount to a “relevant liability” within the meaning of section 130(3) of the BSA. In addition, they contended that the adjudicator may have lacked jurisdiction, rendering the decision unenforceable, and that it would therefore not be just and equitable to impose an adjudication based BLO.

Against that background, two key questions arose:

1. Where the principal contractor has entered administration and faces allegations of extensive fire safety defects (where both factual and legal responsibility remain in dispute), is it nevertheless “just and equitable” for the court, in advance of a full trial, to require associated companies to stand behind any liability that may ultimately be established?

2. How do the BLO provisions apply to liabilities said to arise from an adjudicator’s decision under the statutory and contractual regime established by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA)?

Crest Nicholson v Ardmore: Background and Key Facts

This case concerns a residential development in Portsmouth known as Admiralty Quarters. The development includes 18 apartment buildings and a 21-storey tower.

Thirteen of the buildings are under 18 metres in height, while five buildings and the tower are over 18 metres tall. 18 metres in height is one of the thresholds for a building to be classed as a higher risk building under the BSA, triggering strict regulatory oversight.

The development was built between 2007 and March 2009. The main contractor, ACL, was appointed by the first claimant, Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd (CNR), under a Design and Build (D&B) contract dated 13 December 2005 to design and construct the development. The second claimant, Crest Nicholson (South) Ltd (CNS), holds the long lease of the development.

After the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, investigations were carried out on the external walls of the development to assess fire safety. These investigations found a number of defects in the external wall systems, which posed a risk to residents. There were also concerns about possible fire safety issues within the internal areas of the buildings.

On 29 May 2025, CNR and the third claimant (CNO) began adjudication proceedings against ACL. Their claim related to alleged breaches of the design and build contract, as well as ACL’s duties under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. The adjudication focused on defects in the external walls.

In a decision dated 29 August 2025, the adjudicator found that:

• He had jurisdiction to decide the dispute and had not breached the rules of natural justice.

• The contractual claims for breach of the terms of the D&B contract were time-barred. However, the statutory claims under the DPA survived as they benefited from the extended limitation periods introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022, namely 30 years retrospectively and 15 years prospectively.

• The external wall defects breached Part B of the Building Regulations and ACL’s duties under the DPA.

• ACL was liable to pay CNR approximately £14.9 million.

However, the day before the decision was issued, ACL entered administration.

Decision

When Is It ‘Just and Equitable’ to Grant a Building Liability Order?

On the first question, the court considered the relevant law, namely section 130 of the Building Safety Act, which gives the High Court the power to make a Building Liability Order where it considers it just and equitable to do so.

Section 130(3) goes on to define “relevant liability” for the purposes of the Act. This includes liability, whether arising before or after commencement, under the Defective Premises Act 1972 or as a result of a building safety risk.

The key issue therefore was whether it was just and equitable to make an anticipatory BLO. In considering this, the court reviewed a number of earlier cases and made clear that there is no “one size fits all” approach. The test is a broad and discretionary one and must be applied having regard to the purpose of the Building Safety Act and all relevant factors.

The court also referred to earlier decisions which made clear that:

• the power under section 130 is flexible and fact-specific;
• the court should not try to set out a fixed list of factors when deciding what is just and equitable;
• anticipatory BLOs are permissible under the Act; and
• the timing of a BLO application (whether before, during, or after the main claim) is ultimately a matter of case management.

The court looked at the facts of the case and took into account a number of factors to determine whether it was just and equitable. These factors were:

1. ACL is in administration and has no realistic means of satisfying a judgment.
2.  ACL entered administration due to extensive exposure to post-Grenfell building defect claims.
3. ACL remains part of the wider Ardmore Group alongside the BLO defendants.
4. The group had been restructured to ringfence ACL’s liabilities from the other companies.
5. Ultimate control rested with Cormac Byrne and/or the Byrne Family Trust.
6. There was no real dispute that the development contained relevant building safety risks.
7. There was no real doubt that ACL would ultimately be held liable for those risks.
8. ACL had long been aware of Crest’s claims and related third-party claims.
9. The BLO defendants and Cormac Byrne were also aware of those claims.
10. The BLO defendants failed to engage meaningfully despite receiving pre-action correspondence.
11. Cormac Byrne provided no evidence in response to the application.

Drawing on these factors, the court held that, in the circumstances of this case, it was just and equitable to make the order. As a result, any liability which ACL may ultimately be found to owe under the Defective Premises Act or arising from a building safety risk would also be the joint and several liability of the BLO defendants.

Can an Adjudication Decision Create a Relevant Liability Under the Building Safety Act?

Some of the key factors the court took into account in deciding whether to grant the Adjudication BLO in respect of the adjudicator’s decision dated 29 August 2025 are as follows:

1. Was enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision properly before the court?
   
   Counsel for the BLO defendants argued that enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision was not procedurally before the court, as no summary judgment application had been issued. Counsel for the claimants accepted this but argued that this was not necessary.
   
   The court held that, assuming the adjudicator’s decision is capable of amounting to a “relevant liability”, it is open to the court, on a section 130 application, to determine the existence of that liability and, if just and equitable, to extend it to associated companies.
   
   
2. Is an adjudicator’s decision a “relevant liability”?
   
   The BLO defendants argued that because adjudication decisions are only temporarily binding, they cannot amount to a “relevant liability” under the Act.
   
   The court rejected this. It held that an adjudicator’s decision is binding unless and until it is overturned by the court. Its interim nature does not prevent it from creating a liability. If it is not challenged, it remains binding as a determination of liability.
   
   The court agreed with the claimants that failure to comply with an adjudicator’s decision is itself a liability, and that this can qualify as a “relevant liability” for the purposes of the Building Safety Act. This is because there is a sufficient connection between the underlying liability (arising from the building safety defects) and the obligation to pay.
   
   The court also rejected the argument that it was bound by the adjudicator’s wording in its finding in respect of the External Wall Defects.  Although the adjudicator had found that the extent of the fire safety defects in the external walls rendered certain dwellings unfit for habitation and had not expressly stated that ” there is a building safety risk”, the court held that it was not confined to the adjudicator’s precise language. Instead, the court was entitled to look at the substance of the decision to determine whether the liability arises from a building safety risk.

3. Was it just and equitable to grant the Adjudication BLO?
   
   The BLO defendants argued that adjudication is intended as a short-term, cash-flow mechanism, and that it would therefore be inappropriate to use it as the basis for a BLO.
   
   The court rejected this submission. It held that this argument is inconsistent with the purpose of a BLO. The fact that an adjudication decision is reached quickly and is temporarily binding does not, on its own, make it unjust or inequitable to require associated companies to stand behind that liability.
   
   In conclusion, taking all of these factors into account, the court held that it was just and equitable to make the Adjudication BLO. As a result, each of the BLO defendants was held jointly and severally liable for the sums owed by ACL to the claimants under the adjudicator’s decision.

Conclusion

Overall, the decision in Crest Homes Ltd v Ardmore provides important guidance on both the scope of the “just and equitable” test and the ability to rely on adjudication decisions when seeking a Building Liability Order. The case confirms that the court will take a broad and flexible approach when applying section 130 of the Building Safety Act, and that there is no fixed formula for determining what is just and equitable. Instead, the court will look at the purpose of the Act and the specific facts of each case.

Importantly, the judgment makes clear that the court is willing to make anticipatory BLOs, even where liability has not yet been finally determined, and that associated companies can be required to stand behind that liability where appropriate. At the same time, the decision provides useful clarification that an adjudicator’s decision can, in principle, amount to a “relevant liability”, despite its interim nature. The court’s focus on the substance of the liability, rather than form, signals a practical and purposive approach.

For those seeking a BLO, the case demonstrates that the court is prepared to use its powers to ensure that liability for building safety defects is not easily avoided through corporate structures. For those resisting a BLO, it highlights the difficulty of arguing that adjudication decisions or their temporary status fall outside the scope of the Act.

Taken together, Crest Homes v Ardmore reinforces the wide discretion available to the court and confirms that BLOs are a powerful tool in the post-Building Safety Act landscape.

New Development: It is worth noting that Ardmore has been granted permission to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal this ruling, so this is a space to watch.

If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article or need any advice in relation to the Building Safety Act, our construction team would be happy to help. Please contact us.