Adam Benedict obtains the first ever Information Order under s132 BSA 2022 in the High Court.
What is an Information Order?
An Information Order (“IO”) is a powerful new remedy under section 132 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (the “BSA”).
An IO provides claimants with the ability to unlock complex group-structures formed from an intricate web of construction companies by compelling specified body corporates to provide documents and information needed to assess the potential liability of associated companies in connection with building safety defects.
An IO, when granted by the High Court, will therefore inform a claimant party’s litigation strategy in deciding whether to make an application for a Building Liability Order (“BLO”).
How the first ever Information Order was made - 381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Ltd & others v Click St Andrews Ltd (in liquidation) & others [2022] EWHC 3179 & 3569 (TCC)
In a landmark case, the Adam Benedict team, comprising of Adam Creasey (Managing Director), Grace Jenkins (Senior Associate), and Harrison Carr (Trainee Solicitor), instructed Michael Levenstein of Gatehouse Chambers to act for the Leaseholder Claimants in 381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Limited & others v Click St Andrews (in Liquidation) & others [2022] EWHC 3179 & 3569 (TCC).
Jefford J’s judgment can be accessed via the National Archives and the official transcript can be viewed in the Court Records. We also have a series of insights on this case, and the associated victories, in the news section on our website.
In her ex tempore judgment, Jefford J made the first BLO under s130 of the BSA. Along with the BLO, she made an accompanying IO against the Defendants and Click Herschel Limited (“Herschel”), an “associated” company (within the meaning of the BSA) within the Click Group, who were joined to the proceedings by the Court’s own motion. This IO required Herschel to provide the Claimants with information about the Click Group’s corporate structure, as well as information about the shareholders and directors within the Click Group.
The Court granted the IO because the Claimants alleged that the Defendants had divested certain assets. These divestitures were also believed to be at an undervalue, in breach of the provisions of the Companies Act 2006.
The Claimant’s legal team expressed to Jefford J that it was crucial that Herschel provide information to the Claimants in determining the alleged divestiture within the Click Group.
Jefford J also stated that if the Respondents failed to comply with the terms of the Information Order, she may draw adverse inferences in connection with a future BLO application against another member of the Click Group.
Who can bring an application seeking an Information Order
The right to apply for an IO is broad. Regulation 12 of the Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/711) confirms that “any person making, or intending to make, an application for a building liability order under section 130 of the Act [the BSA] may apply to the High Court for an information order.”
This is deliberately kept broad as the information provided under the IO will likely be crucial to a party’s strategy in deciding whether to apply for a BLO, or to refrain from making such an application. Applying for an IO is generally a sensible and pragmatic approach, although we are yet to see the Court’s full stance in granting an IO, as only Adam Benedict has achieved this feat to date.
It is foreseeable that parties may make speculative applications as either a delay tactic or to ‘test the waters’, potentially contributing to a backlog at the TCC.
Against Whom May an Information Order be Made
The High Court has provided guidance on who might be subject to an IO. In BDW Trading Limited v Ardmore Construction Limited & others [2025] EWHC 434 (TCC), HHJ Keyser KC held that an IO can be directed only at the original corporate defendant that carries the underlying liability and that the associates themselves cannot be compelled to provide information about the wider group organisation.
However, in 381 Southwark Park Road v Click, Jefford J took a different approach, and Adam Benedict was successful in obtaining an IO against a wider class of companies than HH Keyser KC envisaged in BDW.
In short, section 131 says that two companies count as “associates” when control links them: one is associated with another if it controls the other, or if a third company controls both. “Control” is defined broadly to catch direct or indirect majority voting rights, the power to appoint or remove most of the board, or any arrangement that lets a shareholder (on its own or with others) ensure the other company’s affairs are run in accordance with its wishes.
Criteria for an Information Order to be Made
Under s132(3) of the BSA, an IO can only be made if it appears to the Court:
(a) that the body corporate is subject to a relevant liability; and
(b) that it is appropriate for the information to be provided for enabling the applicant to make or consider making an application for a BLO.
For guidance on what constitutes a ‘relevant liability’ and the High Court’s only finding to date, see our earlier article on our website.
In our clients’ case, Jefford J made the finding of a relevant liability prior to the BLO being made. However, the Court has determined that it is not a prerequisite that a relevant liability must have been found prior to making an IO.
In BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 434 (TCC), HHJ Keyser KC confirmed that the BSA requirements for making an IO do not require an established ‘relevant liability’. At paragraph 26 of his Judgment, which can be found here, he states that “section 132(3)(a) does not require that a relevant liability shall already have been established against the corporate entity.”
Further, at paragraph 29 of his Judgment, the judge reiterates that “the power to make an information order exists even where there has been no such prior determination of liability.”
Although this may be the case, an IO applicant must still present evidence which suggests to the Court that it appears the respondent is subject to a relevant liability at the time of the IO.
The judge therefore makes no definitive finding at this stage but must be persuaded that such liability is probable based on the material presented, and more than merely conceivable. As HHJ Keyser KC explained in BDW, “the phrase “is subject to” in s132(3)(a) denotes more than a speculative or contingent risk; it requires a real, present-day liability, even though quantum or precise legal basis may still be argued at trial.”
In BDW, the evidence showed only a possibility of a relevant liability, rather than a likelihood, so the statutory threshold was not satisfied, and the IO was refused.
Conclusion
Information Orders are fast becoming a crucial procedural tool in the context of building safety litigation. As demonstrated in the 381 Southwark Park Road case, when supported by credible allegations and properly targeted, they can provide vital insight into corporate structures and transactions which are otherwise protected.
Their strategic value lies not only in the information obtained but also in the procedural pressure they create as non-compliance may lead to adverse inferences, and speculative applications risk costs and delay.
Written by Harrison Carr
Approved by Adam Creasey