The Ardmore story has moved into its next stage. Creditors have backed rescue proposals designed to protect seven Byrne-controlled group companies from following the main contracting businesses into administration, while chairman Cormac Byrne prepares to pursue an appeal against the landmark Building Liability Order ruling.
The proposals, overseen by business recovery specialist BTG, cover Ardmore Group Holdings, Ardmore Group, Byrne Properties, Celebration Homes, Paddington Construction, Systemhaven and Byrne Estates (Kensal Green). The companies can continue trading while repaying creditors under agreed terms, following the collapse of Ardmore’s main contracting operations in June 2026.
Crest Nicholson and major bonding providers are understood to have supported the proposals, helping carry the creditors’ vote. The immediate objective is to preserve value in the wider Byrne-controlled property group rather than allow those assets and businesses to follow the contracting arm into administration.
For subcontractors, developers and construction business owners across Essex, Kent and London, there are two separate but connected lessons here. The first concerns how a Company Voluntary Arrangement affects the people and businesses owed money. The second is much wider: the company that signed the original construction contract may not be the only company exposed when historic building-safety liabilities arise.
What the Ardmore CVA means for creditors
A Company Voluntary Arrangement, or CVA, is a formal agreement between a company and its creditors. It allows the company to continue trading while repaying some or all of its debts over an agreed period.
That makes a CVA different from administration. In an administration, control passes to administrators and the business may be sold, wound down or restructured. A CVA leaves the directors managing the company, although the arrangement is supervised and creditors must be treated according to its terms.
For an unpaid subcontractor, however, continued trading does not mean the debt is paid in full or paid quickly. Unsecured creditors will usually receive less than the total amount owed, often through staged payments over several years. The precise outcome depends on the proposal, the company’s assets, the level of creditor support and the terms agreed in the vote.
Cashflow is therefore the immediate concern. A subcontractor may have already paid wages, materials, plant hire, VAT and other project costs while waiting for a main contractor’s payment. If that receivable is then placed into a CVA, the subcontractor is effectively financing someone else’s rescue.
Retention money also needs careful attention. Whether retention is held on trust, ring-fenced, subject to a particular contract mechanism or treated as an unsecured debt will depend on the contract and the facts. A CVA does not automatically turn every amount described as retention into money that can be recovered immediately.
The same applies to bonds. A subcontractor or developer may have rights under a performance bond, advance payment bond or parent company guarantee, but those rights must be reviewed separately from the CVA. The bond provider may have its own conditions, notice requirements and arguments about whether a call is valid.
This is why the earlier Moyak post on the Ardmore ÂŁ5m subcontractor lesson is relevant beyond the usual liability covers. Insurance and credit management should be considered together, particularly where a business is dependent on one or two large customers.
Why this matters to subcontractors
Subcontractors should not wait for a formal insolvency notice before reviewing their exposure. Warning signs can include:
- Slower payment of applications or certified sums.
- Repeated requests to extend payment terms.
- Unusual pressure to continue work without an agreed payment plan.
- Delays in returning retention.
- Requests to accept a new group company as the contracting party.
- Changes to purchase orders, guarantees or payment instructions.
- A sudden increase in the value of work being carried out for one customer.
Good relationships matter in construction, but goodwill is not a credit-control system. Set sensible credit limits, monitor overdue balances and consider whether trade credit insurance is appropriate for your business. Keep a clear record of applications, payment notices, pay-less notices, variations, instructions and correspondence.
If a customer enters a CVA, establish quickly whether you are a secured, preferential or unsecured creditor, what payments are proposed, whether ongoing work is covered by new terms and whether you have rights to suspend or terminate. Take legal advice before stopping work or removing materials, as the consequences can be different depending on the contract and site circumstances.
The Building Liability Order appeal
The CVAs also create a platform for Ardmore to challenge the High Court’s approach to Building Liability Orders, or BLOs.
The underlying dispute began with a ÂŁ14.9 million adjudication award secured by Crest Nicholson against Ardmore Construction, now in administration. The claim concerns fire-safety defects at Admiralty Quarter in Portsmouth, constructed between 2007 and 2009 under a JCT 1998 design-and-build contract.
In April 2026, the Technology and Construction Court held that seven associated Ardmore companies could be made jointly and severally liable. The court also confirmed that:
- A BLO can be made before the original liability has been finally determined.
- An adjudicator’s decision can amount to a relevant liability for BLO purposes.
- The “just and equitable” test is broad and is not limited to cases involving abusive special purpose vehicles.
- The relative wealth of sophisticated parties carries little weight in the circumstances of the case.
- The claimant’s insurance position should receive little or no weight when deciding whether a BLO is appropriate.
That April 2026 TCC ruling has been widely discussed because it confirmed a broad approach to Building Liability Orders in the Ardmore context. Ardmore is now preparing an appeal, and the industry is watching closely because the outcome could shape how far historic building-safety liabilities can extend across a corporate group.
If the appeal succeeds, the reach of BLOs could be narrowed. If it fails, the present direction of travel will remain highly significant for holding companies, sister companies, property-owning entities and overseas parents.
Reported potential exposure for associated Ardmore companies has been put as high as ÂŁ300 million, although the ultimate outcome of any claims will depend on the facts, liability, causation, limitation and quantum in each case.
The risk to group companies
The practical point for directors is straightforward: separate legal personality remains important, but it is not an absolute shield against building-safety liabilities.
The court’s approach means that a group cannot assume its exposure stops with the entity that signed the building contract. Depending on the facts, the associated companies may include a parent, sister company, property company or overseas entity.
The recent decision discussed by Osborne Clarke on HB (WM) Ltd v STO Ltd is another indication that the courts may allow building-safety claims involving foreign associated companies to proceed where English law governs the underlying liability.
That matters to groups operating from London, Essex and Kent, including those that use separate companies for development, contracting, property ownership and investment. Directors should understand where historic residential work sits, which entity employed the relevant subcontractors, where project records are held and how insurance was arranged at the time.
The Building Safety Act also extended limitation periods for certain claims, in some cases reaching back up to 30 years. A project completed many years ago should not automatically be treated as irrelevant.
Where Construction Contractor Insurance may become complicated
Traditional professional indemnity and liability programmes are often arranged entity by entity, or project company by project company. That may create uncertainty where a court imposes liability on an associated company that did not carry out the physical work and was not the named insured under the original policy.
A group should review:
- Whether every relevant trading and holding entity is insured or named appropriately.
- Whether historic work is covered under a suitable run-off or continuation arrangement.
- The retroactive date and territorial scope of professional indemnity cover.
- Whether policy notification requirements were followed when historic defects first became known.
- How exclusions for known circumstances, rectification work and contractual liabilities operate.
- Whether cover responds to claims made against an associated company under a statutory order.
- The position where an insurer has merged, withdrawn from the market or no longer writes the relevant class of business.
A standard public liability policy is not a substitute for professional indemnity cover where design responsibility or technical advice is involved. Equally, professional indemnity cover should not be assumed to respond to every BLO-related cost. Policy wording, the identity of the insured, the trigger for the claim and the nature of the alleged liability all matter.
Directors and officers should also discuss D&O insurance with their broker and legal advisers. D&O policies may respond to certain allegations of wrongful acts, investigations or defence costs, but they will not automatically pay a company’s building-remediation liability. The insurance position of a claimant also does not, by itself, prevent a BLO from being made.
Our earlier Moyak post, Courts Can Now Reach Your Whole Company Group, explains why construction cover needs to reflect the actual structure and activities of the business rather than simply provide a certificate for a tender file.
A practical review for construction businesses
I recommend that contractors and group-company directors take the following steps:
- Map the group. Identify parent companies, subsidiaries, sister companies, property companies, dormant entities and overseas owners.
- List historic residential projects. Record completion dates, contract parties, designers, subcontractors, materials and current ownership.
- Locate the records. Preserve drawings, specifications, inspection reports, warranties, fire assessments, completion documents and correspondence.
- Review limitation exposure. Ask legal advisers which historic projects could fall within extended Building Safety Act or Defective Premises Act periods.
- Audit insurance by entity. Check named insureds, policy periods, retroactive dates, run-off arrangements and notification obligations.
- Review group guarantees and bonds. Understand what could be demanded if a contracting entity becomes insolvent.
- Monitor customer credit. Use credit limits, staged payments and appropriate security rather than relying on informal assurances.
- Get advice before restructuring. Moving assets, contracts or operations within a group may have legal, tax, insurance and creditor consequences.
The wider lesson
The Ardmore CVA may preserve businesses, property interests and employment, but it does not remove the pressure on creditors or resolve the wider BLO debate. Subcontractors still need to understand their recovery position, while group companies need to examine historic liabilities that may previously have appeared confined to one trading entity.
For businesses looking for Construction Contractor Insurance, General Contractor Liability Insurance or wider Business Insurance in Essex and Business Insurance London, the sensible approach is to review the whole risk picture. That includes the company structure, the contracts, the customer ledger, the bond programme and the historic insurance arrangements. Our related Moyak posts on the Ardmore ÂŁ5m subcontractor lesson, Courts Can Now Reach Your Whole Company Group and the Mulalley v Sto overseas-parent ruling give useful background on how these issues are developing.
The market is moving towards greater scrutiny of corporate groups and long-tail building safety risk. Contractors who map their exposure now will be in a stronger position to negotiate with insurers, lenders, developers and trading partners later.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal, financial or insurance advice. A CVA, Building Liability Order, construction contract or insurance policy should be reviewed by appropriately qualified professional advisers.