Information Orders and Building Liability Orders: Guidance from the High Court

BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd and Others [2025] EWHC 434 (TCC) offers useful guidance to the industry on the scope of Information Orders and Building Liability Orders arising under the Building Safety Act 2022 ("BSA").

Section 130 of the BSA allows the High Court to grant Building Liability Orders ("BLO's"), which extend certain liabilities to associated companies (such as parents, successors, or related groups), typically, where the original developer has become insolvent, or where the company involved was a special purpose vehicle without assets. The rationale being to prevent developers from escaping liability for safety defects by hiding behind complicated legal structures.

Section 132 of the BSA allows parties to apply for "Information Orders", which require a specified body corporate which is subject to a relevant liability – as defined in the Act - to give specified information or documents relating to persons who are, or have been, associated with that body corporate. These Information Orders allow a party to obtain the information or documents needed to make, or to consider whether to make, a BLO.

BDW, the developer, issued an application for an Information Order against: (i) Ardmore Construction Ltd ("ACL"), the developers, and; (ii) various entities it claimed were associated with ACL. Seeking the information and documents to enable it to make, or consider making, a BLO.

The court rejected the applications. For the latter, the court held that Information Order applications can only be made against the original (contracting) body corporate and not any actual or alleged associates.

For the application against ACL, the court decided that in order to grant an Information Order, BDW needed to first have established that ACL is subject to a relevant liability, not that it “might have” a relevant liability.

Importantly, the court noted that there was nothing to prevent a BLO being made prior to the establishment of a liability on the original body corporate.

The court gave further guidance on the 'appropriateness' of the order sought, finding that whilst Section 132 does not stipulate the kinds or categories of information that may be specified in an Information Order, the court will include in its considerations the privacy, confidentiality, control and commercial sensitivity of the documents. Furthermore, an Information Order cannot compel the original (contracting) body corporate to provide information about itself.

Implications

This decision means that any parties considering applying for an Information Order in anything other than the most straightforward case will likely face a high bar, with any information and documents the Court is likely to consider appropriate to order is likely to be construed narrowly.

This potentially means that future applications for Information Orders are likely to be made sparingly. If the underlying liability is contested by the body corporate, an applicant may find it difficult to demonstrate a relevant liability. Alternative options available would be to: (i) await the outcome of the underlying claim, or; (ii) if sufficient information is available to identify the target, proceed directly to a BLO instead. This is a developing area and we will continue to provide updates as to the court's approach to the BSA.