Summary of Judgment [2025] EWHC 2173 (TCC)<\/p>\n
Background<\/strong> Adjudicator\u2019s Decision (17 January 2025)<\/strong> Defendant\u2019s Objection<\/strong> Claimant\u2019s Response<\/strong> Court\u2019s Assessment<\/strong> Conclusion<\/strong> General Observation: This judgment confirms the limited circumstances in which courts will For the construction industry, this provides welcome certainty and upholds the ‘pay now, argue later’ principle of the statutory adjudication process. Summary of Judgment [2025] EWHC 2173 (TCC) Background The parties entered into a JCT Design and Build contract on 10 November 2022 for the construction of a leisure and retail centre in Bishop Auckland. After completion, disputes arose concerning payment applications, entitlement to extensions of time (EOT), and liquidated damages (LADs). The dispute was referred…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":3062,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kadence_starter_templates_imported_post":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14,15,5,8,53],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4211","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-adjudication","category-arbitration","category-articles","category-fidic-articles","category-lang-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4211","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4211"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4211\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4403,"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4211\/revisions\/4403"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3062"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4211"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4211"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nThe parties entered into a JCT Design and Build contract on 10 November 2022 for the
\nconstruction of a leisure and retail centre in Bishop Auckland. After completion, disputes
\narose concerning payment applications, entitlement to extensions of time (EOT), and
\nliquidated damages (LADs). The dispute was referred to adjudicator Kevin Shilcock.<\/p>\n
\n– The Defendant\u2019s payment notice undervalued the Claimant\u2019s entitlement.
\n– The Claimant was entitled to extensions of time, reducing the LADs claimed by the
\nDefendant.
\n– The Claimant was also entitled to suspension costs and certain additional expenses.
\n– Outcome: The Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant \u00a3541,880.12 + VAT + 10%
\ninterest.<\/p>\n
\nThe Defendant argued that the adjudicator introduced new \u201cfair and reasonable\u201d rates and
\nre-measurements without giving the parties an opportunity to comment. This was alleged
\nto breach the principles of natural justice. It was also claimed that the adjudicator failed to
\nprovide sufficient reasoning, making the decision unenforceable.<\/p>\n
\nThe Claimant submitted that the adjudicator was entitled to apply his expertise in reaching
\na gross valuation based on the parties\u2019 submissions and contract terms. Most of the
\nadjudicator\u2019s valuations were more favorable to the Defendant. The objections were
\nexcessively detailed and did not amount to a substantial injustice.<\/p>\n
\nThe adjudicator\u2019s task was to determine the overall valuation of the payment application,
\nnot individual rates. Using different rates within the range provided by the parties did not
\namount to a breach of natural justice. The discrepancies raised by the Defendant accounted
\nfor only 0.2% (approx. \u00a32,600) of the valuation and were insignificant. Conversely, the
\nadjudicator\u2019s approach benefited the Defendant by over \u00a3200,000. Therefore, no serious or
\nmaterial injustice was established.<\/p>\n
\nThe Court held that the adjudicator\u2019s decision was valid and enforceable. The Claimant\u2019s
\napplication for enforcement was granted, and the Defendant was ordered to make payment.<\/p>\n
\nintervene in adjudicator\u2019s decisions \u2013 only in cases of serious procedural breaches or
\nmanifest injustice.<\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"