Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
In Millchris Developments Ltd v Waters  EWHC 1320 (TCC),
the Technology and Construction Court refused to grant an interim injunction to prohibit the defendant from continuing or commencing adjudication proceedings, rejecting the claimant’s submission that the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic gave
rise to exceptional circumstances in which an injunction should be granted.
The case confirms that it will only be in exceptional circumstances that the court will grant an injunction to restrain adjudication proceedings where the basis put forward is that the adjudication will necessarily be conducted in breach of natural
justice. An example of such a scenario, suggested by the court, was where the adjudicator had made it plain that they only intended to hear from one party.
In relation to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on adjudication proceedings, the ruling makes it clear that the court will expect the parties to give thought to appropriate workarounds, such as remote conferences and site visits, in order to
enable proceedings to continue. Where a party remains concerned that it is unable to comply with an adjudication timetable, the best solution may be to seek to agree an extension with the other party or adjudicator (as appropriate), rather than
attempt to restrain the proceedings entirely.
Ms Waters appointed Millchris to carry out works at her home in Margate under a JCT Home Owner Contract. Although the contract was not subject to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, it provided an express right for disputes to be referred to adjudication.
On 23 March 2020, Waters commenced an adjudication against Millchris in relation to alleged overcharging on the final account and defects. An adjudicator was appointed and the timetable provided for Waters to serve her submission by 30 March and for
Millchris to respond by 3 April. On 26 March, Millchris wrote to the adjudicator saying that it would be unable to comply with the timetable due to the coronavirus crisis (it also claimed that the underlying dispute was too complex for resolution
by adjudication, although this point was not pursued). The adjudicator decided that he should proceed with the adjudication, but proposed a two-week extension for the time for his decision. Waters agreed to this, but Millchris did not.
Millchris sought an interim injunction from the court to prohibit Waters from continuing with the adjudication or commencing any further adjudication under the contract, and requiring her to withdraw the ongoing reference. Millchris claimed that the
adjudication could not be conducted fairly and in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Specifically, Millchris noted the following difficulties:
a comprehensive file of papers produced by the project manager could not be obtained—it was at the home of one of the directors
the adjudicator intended to visit the site, and social distancing rules precluded Millchris from sending its own surveyor to accompany him
While the court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction to restrain an adjudication, it should only do so in exceptional circumstances (per Lonsdale v Bresco  EWHC 2043 (TCC), 179 ConLR 190 at first instance).
Millchris had argued, with reference to the American Cyanamid principles on the granting of interim injunctions, that there were serious issues to be tried in relation to the underlying dispute. However, those matters fell to be
determined by the adjudicator—the court was concerned not with the underlying dispute but with whether there was a serious issue to be tried as to whether the adjudication will necessarily be conducted in breach of natural justice. In the
view of the court, it would be wholly exceptional and unprecedented for an injunction to be granted on such a basis.
On the facts, the court concluded that there was no serious issue to be tried or, to put it another way, no exceptional circumstances that meant that the injunction ought to be granted. In relation to the specific difficulties identified by Millchris,
it was noted that:
there was no explanation as to why the relevant papers could not have been transported or scanned to Millchris’s solicitor, or why they could not have been discussed in a remote conference
its solicitor had been unable to take a proof of evidence due to the managing director being uncontactable, but being unable to get hold of a witness was a common issue in adjudication proceedings, due to the short timetables involved, and
it did not have anything to do with the coronavirus pandemic
it was not unusual for a solicitor to be busy working for other clients while also dealing with an adjudication, and there had been no explanation as to why a colleague or counsel could not have been engaged to help
some of the above difficulties could have been ameliorated by accepting the two week extension proposed by the adjudicator and agreed to by Waters
there was no right for the parties or other surveyors to be present at the site visit. While Waters would inevitably be there, as it was her home, the parties could list the matters they wished the adjudicator to see and he could then observe
them alone. The visit could be recorded or there could even be some form of remote attendance by video
Court: High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts, Technology and Construction Court (QBD)
Judge: Mrs Justice Jefford
Date of judgment: 2 April 2020 (published July 2020)
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234