Anticipatory building liability orders and "just and equitable"

The judgment of Constable J in Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd and Others v Ardmore Construction Ltd (in administration) and Others [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC); [2026] BLR Plus 25 gives careful and extensive consideration to a number of aspects of the law relating to building liability orders (BLOs). Constable J held that, on the facts of the case, where the principal contractor had entered into administration against the backdrop of allegedly extensive fire safety defects, and where both factual and legal responsibility for any such defects was in dispute, it was nevertheless just and equitable to determine in advance of trial that associated companies should stand behind any relevant liability ultimately established. He also held that the obligation to comply with the decision of an adjudicator was a "relevant liability" for the purposes of section 130 of the Building Safety Act 2022 and that, on the facts, it was just and equitable that each of the defendants to the BLO was jointly and severally liable for the sum which the adjudicator had decided that the principal contractor must pay to the claimants and which remained unpaid.