Skip to content

Recent success in the Technology and Construction Court

In a team comprising Adam Beaumont (Counsel), Stephen Radcliffe, Joe Mills, Sam Slater and Josh Wood, Ward Hadaway's construction offering in Leeds have succeeded in enforcing an adjudicator's award in the Technology and Construction Court whilst concurrently resisting a stay of enforcement.

In an adjudication pertaining to sums arising from an unpaid payment application, Bexhill Construction Ltd (“Bexhill”) were awarded £49,664.80. Mike Birchall, of BEA, acted on Bexhill’s behalf in respect of the adjudication proceedings and remained part of the enforcement team when the award went unpaid by Kingsmead Homes Ltd (“Kingsmead”).

The judgment of HHJ Kelly, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, affirms the continued trend of the Court giving primacy to an adjudicator’s decision wherein it is stipulated that all arguments advanced have been taken account of, even if those arguments are not individually referenced within the award itself (see, for example AMEC Group Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd (2010)).

In such circumstances, since the seminal case of Pilon Ltd v Breyer Group plc (2010), the question for the Court is whether the adjudicator has failed to consider the questions referred to him (as framed by the adjudication notice), rather than whether those issues have been rightly, or wrongly, decided. Put shortly, if an adjudicator had not answered the question put to him, his decision would be unenforceable.

Stay up to date with:

  • Trending Topics
  • Latest Insights
  • Upcoming Events
  • Company Updates

In the present circumstances the Court preferred Bexhill’s submissions and held that the adjudicator had made clear in his award that he had taken account of all the arguments, even though Kingsmead contended to the contrary.

The status quo remains, as Coulson J (as he then was) put it in his widely referenced judgment: “If the decision was within the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction and the Adjudicator broadly acted in accordance with the rules of natural justice, such defendants must pay now and argue later” (Hutton Construction Limited v Wilson Properties (London) Limited (2017)).

The hurdle to overcome to resist enforcement remains a high one; unless the adjudicator has exceeded his jurisdiction, or is in serious breach of the rules of natural justice, the decision will be enforced.

For more specifics about this particular case click here.

If would like any advice with a similar matter please do get in touch with our expert team of Construction solicitors.

Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.

This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.

Follow us on LinkedIn

Keep up to date with all the latest updates and insights from our expert team

Take me there

Contact a specialist

Joe Mills

Solicitor | Built Environment

+44 (0) 330 137 3286

+44 (0) 784 381 9417

Email Joe

Read bio

Stephen Radcliffe

Partner | Built Environment

+44 (0) 330 137 3282

+44 (0) 779 324 2478

Email Stephen

Read bio

Meet the whole team

What we're thinking