BSA：建立责任令——公正公平的视角

A Just and Equitable PerspectiveUK – April 2026 Constable J inCrest Nicholson RegenerationLtd & Ors v Ardmore Construction Ltd (InAdministration) & Ors [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC)has delivered a highly anticipated judgmentconcerning, among other things, when it willbe “just and equitable” to grant a BuildingLiability Order (BLO) pursuant to Section 130of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA). Key Takeaways While the judgment touches on many important features ofthe BSA and should be read in full, if possible, we highlightthe following key matters: •A BLO can be brought even when the primary liable party(the “original body” as defined in section 130(2) of the BSA)has entered insolvency. •An adjudicator may determine a relevant liability, particularlyin the context of DPA liabilities, for the purposes of a BLO.This is important because it is not necessary for a partyto become embroiled in lengthy litigation to establish theliability of the original body. This is only the second case to consider the just and equitabletest in the context of a BLO, following Jefford J’s judgment in381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Ltd & Ors v ClickSt Andrews Ltd & Anr [2024] EWHC 3179 (TCC). •A BLO can be obtained before, or in “anticipation”, ofthe underlying relevant liability being established. In thejudgment, a BLO was likened to an a “indemnity”. A partycan therefore bring a BLO application separate from (andin advance of) the underlying proceeding concerned withestablishing the original body’s liability. The claimant canthen seek to rely on the BLO when the liability proceedingsare determined. We understand that the Ardmore group intends to appealthe judgment, and we expect industry stakeholders will befollowing the appeal closely. Facts Between 2007 and 2009, Ardmore Construction Ltd (ACL)was engaged by Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd (CNR) asthe main contractor to design and build Admiralty Quarter inPortsmouth, which is a complex of 19 residential apartmentbuildings. •The court considered the scope of the BSA and stated thefollowing: “in the context of Section 130, the emphasisplaced on domestic property holders and a nexus withfacilitating the actual carrying out of works is misplaced”.We consider this indicates a broader application of a BLO,as compared with a Remediation Order and RemediationContribution Order (RCO). Please check out the next editionof Building Safety F(ACT)s for further commentary on thispoint. Following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017,investigations into the external walls of Admiralty Quarterwere carried out. Following which, a series of fire safety riskswere discovered. Ultimately, adjudication proceedings were issued against ACLon 29 August 2025 relating to alleged breaches of contractand duties under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA).The adjudicator ordered ACL to paycirca£14,928,320.40 (theAward). •An in-depth analysis was provided on when it may bejust and equitable to grant a BLO. While useful, the courtemphasised, like with an RCO, much will turn on the factsof each individual case and the court’s discretion whendeciding whether to grant a BLO is deliberately broad. Following the adjudication, the current BLO proceedings werecommenced against ACL’s associated entities and sought: •It was confirmed (again) that claims under the DefectivePremises Act 1972 may be pursued in adjudication. Thisis important as it is not necessary for a party to becomeembroiled in lengthy litigation to establish a relevant liabilityon which a BLO may attach. •An “anticipatory” BLO in advance of ACL being found inbreach of its obligations under section 1 of the DefectivePremises Act 1972 by a court. •An “Adjudication BLO”, which would make ACL’s associatedentities jointly and severally liable for the Award. Practical Considerations The following practical considerations are important in light ofthe judgment: •Appreciate potential exposure– Any party who is or maybecome involved in BSA claims and disputes must ensurethey identify and manage potential exposure and liabilities.Such considerations will necessarily extend to futurerestructuring or acquisitions. •Speed– We anticipate that this judgment may result ina faster resolution of BSA claims (even if on a temporarybasis). It is crucial that stakeholders appreciate the optionsavailable to them at the outset to ensure they navigate thiscomplex and evolving area of law. •Strategy– Disputes can be expensive and timeconsuming. It is therefore crucial that stakeholders areproactive in positioning themselves from the outset, toallow them to maximise their potential recovery or defenceas against expenditure in both time and cost. We have an expert team of BSA lawyers who are available toassist with any queries so please do not hesitate to contactus.