BDW v Ardmore | mysite

BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd

Citation: [2024] EWHC 3235 (TCC)

Background Facts

The project was a residential apartment development known as Crown Heights in Basingstoke, built under a 2002 design and build contract.
Fire safety defects were discovered years after completion (practical completion between 2003–2004).
BDW acquired the employer’s rights via assignment in 2004 and claimed damages for defects under both the building contract and the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA).
The Building Safety Act 2022 extended the limitation period for DPA claims to 30 years, reviving BDW's right to claim.
In 2024, BDW commenced adjudication seeking over £14 million for remedial works.
An adjudicator found in BDW's favour, awarded £14.5 million plus adjudicator’s costs. Ardmore resisted enforcement.

Crystallisation:
There was a valid dispute; Ardmore had sufficient notice and repeatedly failed to engage substantively.

Jurisdiction over DPA claims:
Claims under the DPA were “disputes under the contract” for adjudication purposes. The court adopted a broad construction similar to arbitration clauses (Fiona Trust principle).

Natural justice arguments:
Rejected; Ardmore’s lack of documentation was due to its own choices, and the adjudicator had sufficiently considered all arguments.

Broad interpretation of "under the contract":
Disputes under section 1(1) of the DPA 1972 can fall within "disputes under the contract" for adjudication. Courts favor a wide, commercial interpretation to avoid fragmenting dispute resolution.

Crystallisation of disputes:
A dispute can crystallise even without a formal denial if a party prevaricates or fails to respond meaningfully. Even staleness or lack of full detail does not prevent crystallisation.

Deliberate concealment and limitation periods:
Courts reinforced that allegations of concealment can extend limitation under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980.

Natural justice challenges:
High threshold: Courts reluctant to interfere with enforcement unless serious procedural unfairness is shown. Incomplete evidence or tactical delay does not suffice.

Policy emphasis on adjudication enforcement:
Reaffirms that adjudication decisions are enforceable on a “pay now, argue later” basis, supporting cash flow and finality in interim dispute resolution.