Information orders guidance under the Building Safety Act 2022

The recent High Court judgment in the case of BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 434 (TCC) (27 February 2025) (bailii.org) provides some very useful guidance on when an information order can be made, who against and in relation to what.

First, some background.

Section 130 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) enables the High Court to make a building liability order (BLO), to the effect that any “relevant liability” of a body corporate (the “original body”) in relation to a specified building (that is, the building specified in the BLO), is also to be the liability of another corporate body or bodies associated with it.

The other body or bodies must have been associated with the original body at some point within the period commencing when the works that caused the relevant liability started and ending when the BLO is made. Bodies are associated if one controls the other or a third body controls them both – s131(1) BSA. What “controls” means is set out in s131(2) - (4).

A “relevant liability” is a liability for a “building safety risk” or a liability which is incurred under the Defective Premises Act 1972 or, if and when it comes fully into force, s38 of the Building Act 1984. s38 of the Building Act will, if brought into full effect, give a party the right to claim damages where they suffer harm because work on a building does not comply with the building regulations.

Any person who makes a claim against an original body in relation to a relevant liability, may apply for a BLO.

A claim in relation to a relevant liability might be in respect of commercial premises, not only residential, depending on the basis of the claim.

The right to apply for a BLO is an important tool, where the original body liable may not be good for all or any of the costs of remediation and any other recoverable losses. But sometimes it is not simple to work out who the associated companies are or were.

Under s132 BSA and associated regulations, any person making, or intending to make, an application to the High Court for a BLO may apply to the High Court for an information order, requiring information from the original body relating to persons who are, or at any time in a period specified in the information order, have been, associated with the original body. That is what happened in this case; but the applications were refused.

Section 132(3)(a) provides that an information order can only be made if it appears to the court that the body corporate is subject to a relevant liability.

The parties were arbitrating and litigating in court the question of whether the contractor had any relevant liability for four different buildings. The judge held that it was therefore not apparent to him that the defendant was subject to a relevant liability.

The court also held that the only person that can be the subject of an information order is the original body – not, for example, one of its associates. That will obviously be an issue, where the original body no longer exists.

The judge also considered that an information order can only be applied for in relation to one building, not one order to cover several buildings. Section 132 does not itself say that. However, an information order is made to assist a person in deciding whether or not to apply for a BLO or who against, and the BLO can only be made in relation to a “specified building.”

In obiter comments (i.e., that do not bind other courts but might guide them and us) the judge also commented on what information could be required to be provided under an information order in relation to companies associated with the original body. The judge considered what might be reasonably necessary to inform a decision as to whether or not to apply for a BLO in relation to a body associated with the original body:

• Financial information about the associate can be required but where financial information is available at Companies House, there should be a proper justification for ordering the provision of any more;
• Further information should not be required about another body where the other body admits that it is associated with the original body;
• An information order should only require information about an associate which the original body might actually have, even if other associated bodies might have that information.

If you would like any advice on information orders or anything contained in this article, please contact Andrew Harbourne in our Construction team on 020 8290 0440.