Building Liability Orders – a new TCC decision in March 2026: what developers and funders need to know

A very recent High Court decision has significantly expanded the practical reach of Building Liability Orders (BLOs) under the Building Safety Act. In Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited -v- Ardmore Construction Limited (in administration) and others [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC), the claimant developer successfully obtained both an anticipatory BLO and an adjudication BLO against solvent group companies, confirming that BLOs can attach group wide liability even before a trial and that the Court is prepared to grant BLOs ahead of a final decision on liability, and in circumstances where only an adjudicator’s award exists.

Key takeaways for developers

1. BLOs can reach deep into corporate groups. If a 'delivery' SPV or contracting entity cannot meet building safety liabilities, the Court will impose joint and several liability on any associate, including:

   • parent companies

   • sister companies

   • other group entities with common control 

   This can happen even before liability is finally determined.

2. An adjudicator’s award, even though temporarily binding, can qualify as a 'relevant liability' for a BLO. This means: a single adjudication could expose a whole group of companies, enforcement stops being limited to the contracting entity in the context of an adjudication, and adjudication strategy may now require group level consideration.

3. Restructuring to manage or ring fence liability will be scrutinised. The Court made it clear that structuring to avoid liability is not an option. Lawful restructurings that have the effect of isolating liabilities may still be unwound through BLOs if it is 'just and equitable'.

4. Financial hardship won’t prevent a BLO. Arguments about the commercial impact on a wider group are unlikely to succeed. The Court’s focus is on: (a) responsibility for defects, (b) the purpose of the Building Safety Act, and not the relative financial strength of group companies.

Key takeaways for funders

1. Traditional SPV finance structures no longer contain building safety risk as BLOs can cut straight through them;

2. Funders should assume that wider group companies may be exposed, even if they are not parties to the building contract;

3. Funder due diligence may now wish to identify all 'associates', i.e. gain a much deeper understanding of: ownership structures, control arrangements and historical group reorganisations;

4. Funders may also wish to consider, with reference to credit and security packages:

   • Borrower representations around historic and potential BLO risk

   • whether the funder relies on Borrower (as developer) group companies for loan servicing?

   • that where senior debt providers 'step in' to a building contract as developer, their associated companies are also at risk of claims for relevant defects

More generally, it’s interesting to note that the Court’s message in this case is unequivocal:

• Corporate structuring to avoid building safety liability is not an option;

• BLOs (like RCOs) now function as a powerful mechanism to hold entire corporate groups responsible for historic defects. Something the team at Hill Dickinson have been advising on frequently over the past 12 months.

• Developers and funders may wish to note:

  • liability can attach early;

  • enforcement can bypass insolvent entities, and

  • group wide exposure is now the norm, not the exception.

The Building Safety Team at Hill Dickinson continues to advise clients on a number of these issues both on new projects and in respect of potential claims arising on existing buildings.

For more information do get in touch with Sarah Emerson and Sam Nichols.