[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
The ruling in Crest Nicholson v Ardmore marks a major escalation in how the Building Safety Act 2022 can be used to pursue liabilities across corporate structures, with the court making clear that group companies can be forced to stand behind historic defects.<\/p>\n
With Ardmore preparing an appeal, the case is now set to become a defining test of how far the Building Safety Act can reach into contractor group structures and who ultimately pays for legacy defects.<\/p>\n
The dispute centres on Portsmouth\u2019s Admiralty Quarter development, a 21-storey residential tower and other multiple residential buildings delivered between 2007 and 2009.<\/p>\n
Crest alleges widespread fire safety failures including combustible insulation, missing cavity barriers and defective fire stopping.<\/p>\n
An adjudicator ruled in August 2025 that Ardmore Construction had breached its duties under the Defective Premises Act and ordered it to pay \u00a314.9m. The contractor entered administration the day before the decision was issued and has not paid.<\/p>\n
Crest then turned to the Building Safety Act to pursue associated companies across the Ardmore group, arguing the wider business should stand behind the liabilities.<\/p>\n
In the ensuing court case, Justice Constable granted Crest Nicholson two powerful orders \u2014 an \u201canticipatory\u201d Building Liability Order (BLO) covering any future liability at trial and a second BLO enforcing a \u00a314.9m adjudication award linked to fire safety defects at the Portsmouth scheme.<\/p>\n
Crucially, the judge confirmed that adjudication decisions can amount to a \u201crelevant liability\u201d under the Act, opening the door for developers to pursue payment across group companies without waiting for a full trial.<\/p>\n
Ardmore confirmed it will challenge the decision.<\/p>\n
A spokesperson for the contractor said: \u201cWe are disappointed by the Court\u2019s decision in relation to Admiralty Quarter, a project delivered almost 20 years ago.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe do not consider that the legislation was intended to apply in this way, and we intend to appeal the judgment.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is not an isolated issue. It has profound implications for the wider construction sector, and we know that a significant number of other contractors are facing similar claims and will likely be closely monitoring how this case develops.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs proceedings are ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.\u201d<\/p>\n
The court found it was \u201cjust and equitable\u201d to extend liability across the Ardmore group, pointing to the insolvency of Ardmore Construction Limited, the group\u2019s restructuring to isolate liabilities, common ownership and control, and evidence of serious fire safety defects.<\/p>\n
Attempts to argue the move was premature failed, with the judge ruling the court could act ahead of trial where liability was highly likely.<\/p>\n
He also rejected claims that adjudication awards were too temporary to support a BLO, confirming they create a binding liability unless overturned.<\/p>\n
The judgment sends a signal that insolvency and corporate restructuring will not shield contractor groups from historic building safety claims, with liability now capable of tracking across associated companies under BLO powers.<\/p>\n
Mark Lennon, construction partner at Gateley Legal, which acted for Crest Nicolson, said: \u201cThis landmark decision has far-reaching implications for the construction industry.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt significantly strengthens the ability of developers and building owners to recover remediation costs and reinforces the principle that those responsible for building safety risks will ultimately be held to account across group structures.<\/p>\n
\u201cContractors, developers, funders and insurers will need to take a much closer look at group wide exposure to BLOs at an early stage, particularly where adjudication, insolvency or restructuring is in play.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe judgment sends a clear message that the courts will use the full breadth of the Building Safety Act to ensure that liability for serious defects rests where it properly belongs.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n