Building liability order - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 09:39, 24 February 2025

2025-02-24T09:39:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:39, 24 February 2025
Line 44:		Line 44:
	* Types of construction organisations.		* Types of construction organisations.

−	[[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]] [[Category:DCN_Regulation]] [[Category:DCN_Specification]] [[Category:DCN_Standard]] [[Category:Definitions]] [[Category:Organisations~~]] [[Category:Case_law~~]] [[Category:Health_and_safety_/_CDM]] [[Category:Regulations]] [[Category:Standards_/_measurements]] [[Category:Client_procedures]] [[Category:Construction_management]] [[Category:Property_development]] [[Category:Public_procedures]] [[Category:Roles_/_services]] [[Category:Building_safety]]	+	[[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]] [[Category:DCN_Regulation]] [[Category:DCN_Specification]] [[Category:DCN_Standard]] [[Category:Definitions]] [[Category:Organisations]] [[Category:Health_and_safety_/_CDM]] [[Category:Regulations]] [[Category:Standards_/_measurements]] [[Category:Client_procedures]] [[Category:Construction_management]] [[Category:Property_development]] [[Category:Public_procedures]] [[Category:Roles_/_services]] [[Category:Building_safety]]

Editor at 06:50, 24 July 2024

2024-07-24T06:50:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:50, 24 July 2024
Line 19:		Line 19:
	On March 21, 2024, the first judgement on a building liability order (BLO) was published in the form of the proceedings of Willmott Dixon v Prater. In this case one party brought claim against a range of defendants, all of which denied liability. It was alleged that, after being notified of the claim, some of the other parties moved assets to related companies, meaning that if a judgement was brought against them, it could not be satisfied. The court rejected the request for a BLO but noted that the the application would be determined within the main proceedings, ie instead of two related proceedings. The		On March 21, 2024, the first judgement on a building liability order (BLO) was published in the form of the proceedings of Willmott Dixon v Prater. In this case one party brought claim against a range of defendants, all of which denied liability. It was alleged that, after being notified of the claim, some of the other parties moved assets to related companies, meaning that if a judgement was brought against them, it could not be satisfied. The court rejected the request for a BLO but noted that the the application would be determined within the main proceedings, ie instead of two related proceedings. The

−	A BLO does not need to be brought at the same time as the primary claim against a related company.	+	* A BLO does not need to be brought at the same time as the primary claim against a related company.
		+	* However, if a BLO was claimed before the main claim was decided, the correct approach would usually be to hear and deal with the BLO at the same time as the main claim.
		+	* While BLOs could raise separate issues to those in the main claim, resolving them would consider much of the same evidence. It therefore would not be sensible for the Court to deal with those after the main claim as it may have to review the issues more than once or require further evidence on the same or similar issues.
		+	* Although BLOs are contingent on the underlying liability, such contingent claims are frequently seen in litigation, for example, claims for contributions or claims under guarantees.
		+	* A failure to pay the underlying claim was not a pre-condition to entitlement to a BLO under the BSA.

−	~~However, if a BLO~~ was ~~claimed before~~ the main claim was ~~decided~~, ~~the correct approach would usually be~~ to ~~hear and~~ deal with the ~~BLO at the same time as the main claim~~.	+	The related companies sought an order that the claim for the BLOs was to be heard separately and to be stayed until the main claim was resolved, arguing it was unfair to deal with this until the liability of Lindner and Prater was determined.

−	~~While BLOs could raise separate issues to those in the main claim, resolving them would consider much~~ of ~~the same evidence. It therefore would not be sensible for the Court to deal with those after the main claim as it may have to review the issues more than once or require further evidence~~ on the ~~same or similar issues~~.	+	-----
−		+	The final section of this article is based on the Construction News article '[https://constructionmanagement.co.uk/willmott-dixon-v-prater-guidance-on-building-liability-orders/ Willmott Dixon v Prater: guidance on building liability orders]', dated July 19, 2024.
−	~~Although BLOs are contingent~~ on ~~the underlying~~ liability, ~~such contingent claims are frequently seen in litigation~~, ~~for example, claims for contributions or claims under guarantees.~~	+
−		+
−	~~A failure to pay the underlying claim was not a pre-condition to entitlement to a BLO under the BSA.~~	+
−		+
−	The related companies sought an order that the claim for the BLOs was to be heard separately and to be stayed until the main claim was resolved, arguing it was unfair to deal with this until the liability of Lindner and Prater was determined.	+

	= Related articles on Designing Buildings =		= Related articles on Designing Buildings =

Editor at 13:41, 23 July 2024

2024-07-23T13:41:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:41, 23 July 2024
Line 34:		Line 34:

	* Addressing building failures: Grenfell Tower and Edinburgh schools.		* Addressing building failures: Grenfell Tower and Edinburgh schools.
−	* Building liability order.
	* Company acquisitions in construction.		* Company acquisitions in construction.
	* Consortium.		* Consortium.
	* Construction organisations and strategy.		* Construction organisations and strategy.
	* Grenfell Tower Inquiry.		* Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
		+	* Information Order.
	* Joint venture.		* Joint venture.
	* Partnering and joint ventures.		* Partnering and joint ventures.
	* Shell company.		* Shell company.
		+	* Special purpose vehicles SPV for building development.
	* Types of construction organisations.		* Types of construction organisations.

	[[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]] [[Category:DCN_Regulation]] [[Category:DCN_Specification]] [[Category:DCN_Standard]] [[Category:Definitions]] [[Category:Organisations]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Health_and_safety_/_CDM]] [[Category:Regulations]] [[Category:Standards_/_measurements]] [[Category:Client_procedures]] [[Category:Construction_management]] [[Category:Property_development]] [[Category:Public_procedures]] [[Category:Roles_/_services]] [[Category:Building_safety]]		[[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]] [[Category:DCN_Regulation]] [[Category:DCN_Specification]] [[Category:DCN_Standard]] [[Category:Definitions]] [[Category:Organisations]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Health_and_safety_/_CDM]] [[Category:Regulations]] [[Category:Standards_/_measurements]] [[Category:Client_procedures]] [[Category:Construction_management]] [[Category:Property_development]] [[Category:Public_procedures]] [[Category:Roles_/_services]] [[Category:Building_safety]]

Editor at 13:17, 23 July 2024

2024-07-23T13:17:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:17, 23 July 2024
Line 31:		Line 31:
	The related companies sought an order that the claim for the BLOs was to be heard separately and to be stayed until the main claim was resolved, arguing it was unfair to deal with this until the liability of Lindner and Prater was determined.		The related companies sought an order that the claim for the BLOs was to be heard separately and to be stayed until the main claim was resolved, arguing it was unfair to deal with this until the liability of Lindner and Prater was determined.

−	[[Category:~~Articles_needing_more_work~~]]	+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings =
		+
		+	* Addressing building failures: Grenfell Tower and Edinburgh schools.
		+	* Building liability order.
		+	* Company acquisitions in construction.
		+	* Consortium.
		+	* Construction organisations and strategy.
		+	* Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
		+	* Joint venture.
		+	* Partnering and joint ventures.
		+	* Shell company.
		+	* Types of construction organisations.
		+
		+	[[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:DCN_Policy]] [[Category:DCN_Regulation]] [[Category:DCN_Specification]] [[Category:DCN_Standard]] [[Category:Definitions]] [[Category:Organisations]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Health_and_safety_/_CDM]] [[Category:Regulations]] [[Category:Standards_/_measurements]] [[Category:Client_procedures]] [[Category:Construction_management]] [[Category:Property_development]] [[Category:Public_procedures]] [[Category:Roles_/_services]] [[Category:Building_safety]]

Editor at 11:47, 23 July 2024

2024-07-23T11:47:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:47, 23 July 2024
Line 16:		Line 16:
	## may be made in respect of a liability of a body corporate that has been dissolved (including where dissolution occurred before commencement);		## may be made in respect of a liability of a body corporate that has been dissolved (including where dissolution occurred before commencement);
	## continues to have effect even if the body corporate is dissolved after the making of the order.		## continues to have effect even if the body corporate is dissolved after the making of the order.
		+
		+	On March 21, 2024, the first judgement on a building liability order (BLO) was published in the form of the proceedings of Willmott Dixon v Prater. In this case one party brought claim against a range of defendants, all of which denied liability. It was alleged that, after being notified of the claim, some of the other parties moved assets to related companies, meaning that if a judgement was brought against them, it could not be satisfied. The court rejected the request for a BLO but noted that the the application would be determined within the main proceedings, ie instead of two related proceedings. The
		+
		+	A BLO does not need to be brought at the same time as the primary claim against a related company.
		+
		+	However, if a BLO was claimed before the main claim was decided, the correct approach would usually be to hear and deal with the BLO at the same time as the main claim.
		+
		+	While BLOs could raise separate issues to those in the main claim, resolving them would consider much of the same evidence. It therefore would not be sensible for the Court to deal with those after the main claim as it may have to review the issues more than once or require further evidence on the same or similar issues.
		+
		+	Although BLOs are contingent on the underlying liability, such contingent claims are frequently seen in litigation, for example, claims for contributions or claims under guarantees.
		+
		+	A failure to pay the underlying claim was not a pre-condition to entitlement to a BLO under the BSA.
		+
		+	The related companies sought an order that the claim for the BLOs was to be heard separately and to be stayed until the main claim was resolved, arguing it was unfair to deal with this until the liability of Lindner and Prater was determined.

	[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]		[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]

Editor at 11:32, 23 July 2024

2024-07-23T11:32:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:32, 23 July 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Building liability orders were introduced as a result of the Grenfell tragedy and as part of the [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/part/5/crossheading/building-liability-orders Building Safety Act, 2022, in part 5, section 130]. They are a mechanism that allows recovery rights relating to a building to extend beyond that of a subsidiary company (sometimes referred to as a special purpose vehicle) to its associated companies.	+	Building liability orders (BLOs) were introduced as a result of the Grenfell tragedy and as part of the [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/part/5/crossheading/building-liability-orders Building Safety Act, 2022, in part 5, section 130]. They are a mechanism that allows recovery rights relating to a building to extend beyond that of a subsidiary company (sometimes referred to as a special purpose vehicle) to its associated companies.

−	The background that sometimes as a means of securitisation for property based financial products in development and construction, separate legal entities are set up for the specific purpose of isolating risk. ~~They~~ are ~~designed to prevent adverse risk being transferred~~ to or ~~from~~ the ~~owners~~ of the ~~SPV~~, the ~~operations of which are limited~~ to ~~the acquisitionand financing of specific property assets~~.	+	The background to building liability orders (BLOs) is that sometimes as a means of securitisation for property based financial products in development and construction separate legal entities are set up for the specific purpose of isolating risk. The risks and liabilities, legal and financial are as such then held by the separate entity or SPV, as opposed to the parent company or developer. In such circumstances and in the case of building safety, as was displayed during the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, allocating responsibility can become extremely complex and the BLOs aim allocate responsibility back to a parent company even where strictly speaking liability might be held by a separate entity.

−	~~(1)The High Court may make a~~ building liability ~~order if it considers it just and equitable to do so.~~	+	[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/part/5/crossheading/building-liability-orders Section 130, Part 5 of the Building Safety Act, 2022] states that

−	~~(2)~~A “building liability order” is an order providing that any relevant liability (or any relevant liability of a specified description) of a body corporate (“the original body”) relating to a specified building is ~~also—~~	+	# The High Court may make a building liability order if it considers it just and equitable to do so.
−		+	# A “building liability order” is an order providing that any relevant liability (or any relevant liability of a specified description) of a body corporate (“the original body”) relating to a specified building is also
−	~~(a)~~a liability of a specified body corporate, or	+	## a liability of a specified body corporate, or
−		+	## a joint and several liability of two or more specified bodies corporate.
−	~~(b)~~a joint and several liability of two or more specified bodies corporate.	+	# In this section “relevant liability” means a liability (whether arising before or after commencement) that is incurred
−		+	## under the Defective Premises Act 1972 or section 38 of the Building Act 1984, or
−	~~(3)~~In this section “relevant liability” means a liability (whether arising before or after commencement) that is ~~incurred—~~	+	## as a result of a building safety risk.
−		+	# A body corporate may be specified only if it is, or has at any time in the relevant period been, associated with the original body.
−	~~(a)~~under the Defective Premises Act 1972 or section 38 of the Building Act 1984, or	+	# A building liability order
−		+	## may be made in respect of a liability of a body corporate that has been dissolved (including where dissolution occurred before commencement);
−	~~(b)~~as a result of a building safety risk.	+	## continues to have effect even if the body corporate is dissolved after the making of the order.
−		+
−	~~(4)~~A body corporate may be specified only if it is, or has at any time in the relevant period been, associated with the original body.	+
−		+
−	~~(5)~~A building liability ~~order—~~	+
−		+
−	~~(a)~~may be made in respect of a liability of a body corporate that has been dissolved (including where dissolution occurred before commencement);	+
−		+
−	~~(b)~~continues to have effect even if the body corporate is dissolved after the making of the order.	+

	[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]		[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]

Editor at 11:18, 23 July 2024

2024-07-23T11:18:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:18, 23 July 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Building liability orders were introduced as a result of the Grenfell tragedy and as part of the [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/part/5/crossheading/building-liability-orders Building Safety Act, 2022, in part 5, section 130]. They are a mechanism that allows recovery rights relating to a building to extend beyond that of a subsidiary company ~~also~~ sometimes referred to as a special purpose vehicle to its associated companies. The background ~~being~~ that	+	Building liability orders were introduced as a result of the Grenfell tragedy and as part of the [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/part/5/crossheading/building-liability-orders Building Safety Act, 2022, in part 5, section 130]. They are a mechanism that allows recovery rights relating to a building to extend beyond that of a subsidiary company (sometimes referred to as a special purpose vehicle) to its associated companies.
		+
		+	The background that sometimes as a means of securitisation for property based financial products in development and construction, separate legal entities are set up for the specific purpose of isolating risk. They are designed to prevent adverse risk being transferred to or from the owners of the SPV, the operations of which are limited to the acquisitionand financing of specific property assets.

	(1)The High Court may make a building liability order if it considers it just and equitable to do so.		(1)The High Court may make a building liability order if it considers it just and equitable to do so.

Editor at 10:47, 23 July 2024

2024-07-23T10:47:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:47, 23 July 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Building liability orders were introduced as a result of the Grenfell tragedy and as part of the [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/part/5/crossheading/building-liability-orders Building Safety Act, 2022, in part 5, section 130]. They are a mechanism that allows recovery rights relating to a building to extend beyond that of a subsidiary company also sometimes referred to as a special purpose vehicle to its associated companies.	+	Building liability orders were introduced as a result of the Grenfell tragedy and as part of the [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/part/5/crossheading/building-liability-orders Building Safety Act, 2022, in part 5, section 130]. They are a mechanism that allows recovery rights relating to a building to extend beyond that of a subsidiary company also sometimes referred to as a special purpose vehicle to its associated companies. The background being that

	(1)The High Court may make a building liability order if it considers it just and equitable to do so.		(1)The High Court may make a building liability order if it considers it just and equitable to do so.

Editor at 10:05, 23 July 2024

2024-07-23T10:05:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:05, 23 July 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Building liability orders were introduced as a result of the Grenfell tragedy and as part of the [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/part/5/crossheading/building-liability-orders Building Safety Act, 2022, in part 5, section 130]. They are a mechanism that allows ~~the broadening the~~ recovery rights ~~related~~ to a building to go beyond that of a subsidiary company to its associated companies.	+	Building liability orders were introduced as a result of the Grenfell tragedy and as part of the [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/part/5/crossheading/building-liability-orders Building Safety Act, 2022, in part 5, section 130]. They are a mechanism that allows recovery rights relating to a building to extend beyond that of a subsidiary company also sometimes referred to as a special purpose vehicle to its associated companies.

	(1)The High Court may make a building liability order if it considers it just and equitable to do so.		(1)The High Court may make a building liability order if it considers it just and equitable to do so.

Editor at 10:02, 23 July 2024

2024-07-23T10:02:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:02, 23 July 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Building liability orders were introduced as a result of the Grenfell tragedy and as part of the Building Safety Act, 2022, in part 5, section 130. They are a mechanism that allows the broadening the recovery rights related to a building to go beyond that of a subsidiary company to its associated companies.	+	Building liability orders were introduced as a result of the Grenfell tragedy and as part of the [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/part/5/crossheading/building-liability-orders Building Safety Act, 2022, in part 5, section 130]. They are a mechanism that allows the broadening the recovery rights related to a building to go beyond that of a subsidiary company to its associated companies.

	(1)The High Court may make a building liability order if it considers it just and equitable to do so.		(1)The High Court may make a building liability order if it considers it just and equitable to do so.