Fire Safety Disputes: Lessons from the BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction £14.5M Adjudication Case

The recent case of BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 3235 (TCC) provides significant insights into the enforcement of adjudicators' decisions in historic fire safety disputes. In this case, BDW sought to enforce an adjudicator's award of £14,454,914.45 in damages and £84,329.00 in adjudicator costs for defects in a building completed between December 2003 and June 2004.

This landmark case highlights critical lessons in adjudication for fire safety and construction professionals.

Key Lessons from the Case:

• The application of the Defective Premises Act 1976 (DPA) in adjudication
• Evidence challenges in historic fire safety claims
• The broader role of adjudication in resolving complex, high-value disputes

Defective Premises Act 1976 (DPA) and Adjudication

A central issue in this case was whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to resolve a claim under the Defective Premises Act 1976 (DPA), a statutory tort. Ardmore argued that this claim fell outside the scope of adjudication as it did not arise directly from the contract.

However, the Court ruled otherwise, confirming that adjudication covers all disputes connected to the contract, including statutory claims like those under the DPA, unless explicitly excluded. This decision is consistent with previous case law and reinforces that statutory claims can be adjudicated when intrinsically linked to the contract.

Key Takeaway: Adjudication is not limited to contractual disputes and can extend to statutory claims related to the contract.

Evidence Challenges in Historic Fire Safety Claims

Ardmore contended that the adjudication process was unsuitable due to the complexity of the case, the passage of time, and insufficient evidence. They referenced a similar Scottish case where an adjudicator faced difficulties due to poor documentation.

The Court rejected these arguments, emphasising the following:

1. Extended adjudication timeline: The process was extended (from March to September 2024) to allow for proper disclosure.
2. Responsibility for inadequate evidence: Ardmore's inability to produce adequate records stemmed from its own lack of investigation, poor file management, and failure to inspect the property.
3. Adherence to natural justice principles: Disclosure requests were granted, ensuring a fair process.

The Court concluded that the passage of time alone does not make adjudication unjust. Even in complex cases, adjudication can ensure fair outcomes.

Key Takeaway: Thorough documentation and proactive engagement are essential for navigating complex adjudications involving historic claims.

Adjudication for High-Value and Historic Disputes

Despite the complexities of the case, involving £14.5 million in damages for work completed nearly 20 years ago, the Court upheld the adjudicator's decision. This reinforces adjudication as a robust and effective dispute resolution mechanism for high-value, historic disputes.

Adjudication offers a faster, more cost-effective alternative to litigation, even in cases involving:

• Extended timelines
• Complex evidence
• High-value claims

Key Takeaway: Adjudication remains a viable tool for resolving disputes efficiently, regardless of their complexity or historical context.

Implications for Fire Safety Claims and Adjudication

With the extended limitation periods under the DPA, cases involving historic fire safety defects are becoming more prevalent. This ruling provides crucial guidance for the construction industry.

Practical Steps for Construction Professionals:

• Maintain comprehensive records: Ensure detailed documentation of all works undertaken.
• Cooperate fully in adjudication: Engage proactively with disclosure requests and investigations.
• Recognise the scope of adjudication: Understand that statutory claims under the DPA are valid in adjudication if linked to the contract.

This case demonstrates the adaptability and effectiveness of adjudication in delivering fair outcomes, even in complex, high-stakes disputes.

Get Expert Advice on Historic Fire Safety Claims

If you are dealing with a fire safety dispute, particularly those involving historic defects, adjudication could be the quickest and most effective resolution method.

For expert legal advice, contact Andrew Cullyer, a specialist in construction litigation, on 023 8063 9311 or via email at enquiries@warnergoodman.co.uk.