Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd v Prater & Others [2024] EWHC 1190 (TCC)

Building Liability Orders · Building Safety Act 2022 s.130 · Part 20 contribution proceedings · Fire safety defects

In Willmott Dixon Construction Limited v Prater & Ors [2024] EWHC 1190 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court gave some of the earliest and most significant guidance on Building Liability Orders ("BLOs") under section 130 of the Building Safety Act 2022.

Background

Willmott Dixon brought claims against its supply chain for approximately £47m, to recoup remedial costs incurred in rectifying alleged fire safety defects in the external walls of a development at Love Lane, Woolwich, following its settlement with the employer. The defendants included the specialist envelope sub-contractor and consultant designers.

Within the proceedings, Part 20 claims were advanced seeking BLOs against further companies in the sub-contractor's corporate group, reflecting concerns about the financial position of the original contracting entities following a group restructuring after the main claim had been intimated.

The Decision

Mrs Justice Jefford declined to stay the BLO claims. The Court held that a Building Liability Order need not be sought at the same time as, or in the same proceedings as, the primary claim establishing the "relevant liability" — but equally that there is no bar to pursuing BLO relief within existing proceedings. The judgment provided practical guidance on the procedural routes by which BLOs may be pursued, including by way of Part 20 contribution proceedings.

The case is understood to be the first in which a Part 20 claimant obtained permission to pursue a Building Liability Order by way of Part 20 contribution proceedings — a significant development for contractors and consultants facing claims where the directly liable entities within a counterparty group may lack the means to satisfy a judgment.

Significance

BLOs are one of the most powerful tools introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022, allowing liabilities of one body corporate to be extended to associated companies. This decision confirms their procedural flexibility: parties down the contractual chain can protect their position against corporate restructuring within a counterparty's group without waiting for the primary liability to be established first.