When an adjudicator/DAB-DAAB uses their own expertise — is that jurisdictional overreach?

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 to adjudicator Kevin Shilcock.

Adjudicator’s Decision (17 January 2025)
– The Defendant’s payment notice undervalued the Claimant’s entitlement.
– The Claimant was entitled to extensions of time, reducing the LADs claimed by the
Defendant.
– The Claimant was also entitled to suspension costs and certain additional expenses.
– Outcome: The Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant £541,880.12 + VAT + 10%
interest.

Defendant’s Objection
The Defendant argued that the adjudicator introduced new “fair and reasonable” rates and
re-measurements without giving the parties an opportunity to comment. This was alleged
to breach the principles of natural justice. It was also claimed that the adjudicator failed to
provide sufficient reasoning, making the decision unenforceable.

Claimant’s Response
The Claimant submitted that the adjudicator was entitled to apply his expertise in reaching
a gross valuation based on the parties’ submissions and contract terms. Most of the
adjudicator’s valuations were more favorable to the Defendant. The objections were
excessively detailed and did not amount to a substantial injustice.

Court’s Assessment
The adjudicator’s task was to determine the overall valuation of the payment application,
not individual rates. Using different rates within the range provided by the parties did not
amount to a breach of natural justice. The discrepancies raised by the Defendant accounted
for only 0.2% (approx. £2,600) of the valuation and were insignificant. Conversely, the
adjudicator’s approach benefited the Defendant by over £200,000. Therefore, no serious or
material injustice was established.

Conclusion
The Court held that the adjudicator’s decision was valid and enforceable. The Claimant’s
application for enforcement was granted, and the Defendant was ordered to make payment.

General Observation: This judgment confirms the limited circumstances in which courts will
intervene in adjudicator’s decisions – only in cases of serious procedural breaches or
manifest injustice.

For the construction industry, this provides welcome certainty and upholds the ‘pay now, argue later’ principle of the statutory adjudication process.