First Judicial Interpretation of Building Safety Act 2022: Key Ruling on Information Orders and Building Liability Orders

BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 434 (TCC), published on 27 February 2025, provides the first judicial interpretation of Sections 130 and 132 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA). The ruling, issued by His Honour Judge Keyser KC, clarifies the criteria for obtaining a court order for information and documents (information order) related to a Building Liability Order (BLO). This decision has significant implications for developers and contractors addressing historic building defects.

Background 

BDW Trading Ltd, a subsidiary of Barratt Developments PLC, sought an information order under Section 132 of the BSA, or alternatively under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act, or through the court's inherent jurisdiction, to compel Ardmore Construction Ltd (ACL) to disclose extensive financial and corporate information. BDW argued that it required this information to consider making a BLO under Section 130 of the BSA, which would extend liability for defective works to associated corporate entities.

The dispute arose from five relevant building projects completed by ACL as the design and build contractor for BDW between 1999 and 2005, where post-Grenfell investigations revealed significant fire safety and structural issues. BDW, having committed to rectifying the defects, sought to recover its costs, estimated at over £85 million from ACL and its associated companies, including Ardmore Construction Group Ltd (R2), Ardmore Group Ltd (R3), and Ardmore Group Holdings Ltd (R4). 

BDW has notified ACL of claims in respect of the fire safety and structural defects, on the basis that the defects were caused by ACL's breach of duties under the Defective Premises Act 1972, and/or pursuant to the Civil Liability Contribution Act 1978. ACL's liability was established in an adjudication award for one development, which has been paid. ACL disputes its liability for the other four developments, with two cases pending arbitration and two cases at an early stage of litigation.

ACL is a wholly owned subsidiary of R2, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of R3. R3 is a wholly owned subsidiary of R4, the ultimate parent company. R2 and R3 acknowledge their association with ACL under Sections 130 to 132. BDW seeks information to determine if R4 is an associate of ACL, and if any other entities, including those incorporated in the British Virgin Islands or the Republic of Ireland, are associated with ACL, along with up-to-date financial information on the respondents. 

 Section 132 of the BSA

 Section 132(2) provides: 

 ‘An “information order” is an order requiring a specified body corporate to give, by a specified time, specified information or documents relating to persons who are, or have at any time in a specified period been, associated with the body corporate.’

Section 132(3) provides: 

“An information order may be made only if it appears to the court

 (a) that the body corporate is subject to a relevant liability (within the meaning of Section 130), and 

(b) that it is appropriate to require the information or documents to be provided for the purpose of enabling the applicant (or the applicant and others) to make, or consider whether to make, an application for a building liability order.”

Judgment 

Judge Keyser KC ultimately dismissed BDW’s application, providing clarity on several legal issues that will shape future applications for information orders under the BSA:

1. Against whom can an information order be made?

BDW had sought an information order against not only ACL but also its associated companies. However, the court held that under Section 132, an information order can only be made against the body corporate that is subject to a relevant liability, not against its associates (para 17). BDW relied on an example from the Explanatory Notes to the BSA, which suggested that an order could be made against an associate. The court rejected this, ruling that explanatory notes cannot override statutory wording (para 18).

1. What constitutes a ‘relevant liability’?

A core issue was whether ACL was ‘subject to a relevant liability’ under Section 132(3)(a). The court ruled that liability must be established, not merely alleged. BDW argued that expert reports and legal advice indicating the existence of defects should suffice, but the court disagreed, stating that liability must be determined by a court, arbitrator, or adjudicator (para 22-23; 25-37).

BDW also pointed to a prior adjudication decision where ACL was found liable for defects at relevant building project one (Crown Heights) and ordered to pay £14.5 million. However, since ACL had already discharged this liability, the court held that it was no longer ‘subject to a relevant liability’  (para 32). Furthermore, BDW’s attempt to rely on ACL’s potential liability for appeal costs was dismissed, as such costs do not fall within the statutory definition of a relevant liability under Section 130(3) (para 33).

1. The court’s approach to financial disclosure requests

BDW sought extensive financial information, including ACL’s cash flow forecasts, management accounts, asset registers, and security arrangements. The court ruled that such requests were overly intrusive and not necessary to determine whether to apply for a BLO (paras 46-50). While financial information may be relevant in some cases, an applicant must demonstrate why such disclosure is necessary.

The court rejected BDW's alternative arguments for obtaining information under the court's inherent jurisdiction or Section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, reinforcing the statutory limits of the BSA.

Key takeaway 

The judgment represents the first in-depth analysis of Sections 130 and 132 of the BSA, setting a precedent for future court handling of similar applications. It ensures that information orders are not used to place undue burdens on companies without clear evidence of liability. By emphasising the necessity for clear and specific evidence before granting information orders, the judgment protects construction companies from overly broad and intrusive demands for information, while still holding them accountable for building safety defects.

For BDW, this ruling presents a major setback in its attempt to extend liability beyond ACL. However, the company may still pursue BLO applications against ACL’s associates if it can first establish ACL’s liability in the pending disputes. Developers and freeholders seeking to use BSA provisions to pierce corporate structures will need to ensure they have clear legal grounds before making information requests. Meanwhile, contractors facing such claims can take some reassurance from the court’s emphasis on procedural fairness and the limits of disclosure.

With billions of pounds at stake in cladding and fire safety remediation costs, this ruling is unlikely to be the last word on these issues. Future litigation will likely refine how courts interpret the ‘relevant liability’ test, particularly where liability is disputed but not yet adjudicated.