The TCC has reiterated its commitment to the robust enforcement of Adjudicator’s awards in construction and engineering disputes, in the recent case of Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership LLP -v- Avison Young (UK) Ltd [2026] EWHC 2319 (TCC).
The Defendant (“AY”) was engaged to act as NEC Project Manager and Supervisor in relation to a project at Gateway South in Coventry, for which Buckingham Group (“Buckingham”) was the contractor. The dispute centred around the valuation of reclamation and remediation earthworks carried out by Buckingham and valued by AY.
The Claimant alleged that AY had significantly overvalued the works, resulting in overpayments to Buckingham, which subsequently became insolvent. The Claimant could therefore not recover those overpayments and suffered loss as a result. The dispute was referred to adjudication and the decision given was in the Claimant’s favour, awarding it circa £8.7 million plus interest. AY refused to pay the award and challenged the enforcement of the Adjudicator’s decision.
The TCC’s judgment provides a useful summary and reminder of the difficulty in resisting enforcement of an Adjudicator’s decision, or rather the TCC’s robust approach to enforcing the same, as it was required to deal with a number of grounds for challenge raised by AY in this case, including:
- Jurisdiction – that the Adjudicator decided a different dispute to that referred, as AY alleged that the Adjudicator conducted a retrospective valuation exercise rather than a determination of the professional negligence claim referred.
- Failure to give reasons – the Adjudicator had failed to adequately explain the reasons for the decision reached.
- Breach of natural justice – the Adjudicator had relied upon and based an element of the decision on evidence before him, but for which he had not given the parties a fair opportunity to address its use.
- Severance – that even if it were enforceable, the parts of the decision relating to retention and defects could and should be severed and not enforced.
The TCC, in a 99 paragraph judgment, rejected each and every ground raised by the Defendant and enforced the decision. In doing so Mr Justice Eyre summarised and confirmed a number of key points in the judgment, including:
- The reasons given for an adjudicator’s decision can be expressed briefly, and the decision must be read as a whole to ascertain whether adequate reasons have been given. It is sufficient if the reasons enable the parties to understand what the adjudicator has decided and why.
- If an adjudicator correctly articulates the relevant issue to be decided, this is a powerful indication that they then proceeded to address that issue, but this is not conclusive. In this case the adjudicator did both. Just because the adjudicator did not structure the decision as an analysis of whether there had been a breach of the Defendant’s duties followed by a separate analysis of the resulting loss, as may have been done by a judge, this did not amount to a failure to address the dispute which had been referred.
- As to natural justice, the adjudicator had given the parties a clear indication that he was considering using a specific piece of evidence, including inviting submissions and offering a meeting to discuss the point (an offer neither party took). Although the adjudicator used the evidence in a manner neither party had advocated for, this is permissible providing he had given them a fair opportunity to address the issue, which he had.
- On severance, adjudicators are allowed to accept aspects of each party’s arguments but not the arguments in full and reach a conclusion based on those accepted aspects. It was “verging on the fanciful to suggest that either side was unaware of the possibility that its arguments on this point might be accepted in part rather than in whole”.
The judgment provides a useful summary of the grounds on which parties often seek to resist the enforcement of adjudicators awards and is a good example of the robust approach the TC23C will take to the same. Further, this is a reminder that a wide range of disputes are capable of being referred to adjudication as disputes arising under a qualifying construction contract, in this case a professional negligence claim.
