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.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
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
Printer Friendly Version
In Hutton Construction v Wilson Properties, Coulson J issued guidance superseding the guidance found in the TCC Guide concerning when the court will consider a dispute over an adjudicator’s findings in the course of enforcement by way of TCC summary judgment. Matthew Thorne of 4 Pump Court Chambers considers the judgment and its implications.
This article originally appeared on Lexis®PSL on 20 March 2017. Subscribers can enjoy earlier access and a full-range of related guidance. Click here for a free trial.
Unless the parties agree a consensual approach to resolution of the disputed issue:
A defendant who unsuccessfully raises this sort of challenge on enforcement will almost certainly have to pay the claimant’s costs of the entire action on an indemnity basis. Conversely, where a claimant does not agree to deal with the issues on
enforcement, but the court finds that it does fall within the exception, also runs the risk of cost penalties.
This guidance supersedes that in paragraph 9.4.3 of the TCC Guide.
The parties entered into a contract dated 12 November 2014 on the JCT Standard Building Contract Without Quantities 2011 form. On 17 August 2016, the claimant served an application for payment. A dispute arose, and the issues in the adjudication were
whether there was a valid interim certificate or pay less notice in response. The defendant argued that its pay less notice was an interim certificate, alternatively was a valid and effective pay less notice. The defendant’s case was rejected
by the adjudicator.
Following commencement of TCC enforcement proceedings, the defendant raised issues of fact, identified conversations said to be relevant but not raised in the adjudication, and failed to identify what declarations were sought. It subsequently issued a
Part 8 Claim Form, but again failed to seek any specific declarations.
The judge permitted the Part 8 claim to continue at a later date, but refused to consider the defendant’s challenge to the adjudicator’s decision during the earlier TCC enforcement proceedings. Coulson J indicated that the Part 8 Claim Form
was issued late in the day and was incomplete; new factual matters were being raised; and there was nothing unconscionable in refusing to consider the challenge at this stage. On the contrary, permitting a challenge would mean that, instead of being
the de facto dispute resolution regime in the construction industry, adjudication would simply become the first part of a two-stage process, with everything coming back to the court for review prior to enforcement. That is completely
the opposite of the principles outlined in Macob Civil Engineering v Morrison Construction , Bouygues (UK) v Dahl-Jensen (UK) and Carillion Construction Limited v Devonport Royal Dockyard and cannot
The court noted that the starting point is that, if the adjudicator has decided the issue referred to him or her, and has broadly acted in accordance with the rules of natural justice, the decision will be enforced.
There are two narrow exceptions to this rule:
Where the claimant has succeeded and seeks to enforce an award, the point in dispute is often straightforward, to the effect that the adjudicator was wrong and that, either with regard to its timing or content, the relevant payment notice was invalid
and/or that the pay less notice was valid and prevented payment.
Often, the defendant will issue a Part 8 claim challenging the decision, and the parties will reach agreement that the matter will be put to the court, and the sum paid if the award is upheld. The existence of the Part 8 claim also means that the TCC
knows from the outset what is likely to be involved at a subsequent hearing. This process has worked relatively well to date.
In circumstances where the parties do not reach such consensus, on the other hand, the following approach must be adopted:
The judge went on to suggest that, in practice, this means that the adjudicator’s construction of the clause should be 'beyond rational justification', the calculation of time periods should be obviously wrong, or a document be categorised
in a way which, on any view, it could not be described as.
Furthermore, such an issue could only be raised on enforcement if the consequences were clear-cut. If the effect of the issue is disputed as well, it is unlikely that the court would take it into account on enforcement.
A defendant who unsuccessfully raises this sort of challenge on enforcement will almost certainly have to pay the claimant’s costs of the entire action on an indemnity basis.
Conversely, a claimant who does not agree to deal with the issues on enforcement, where the court finds that it does fall within the exception and can be considered, also runs the risk of cost penalties.
This article originally appeared on LexisPSL. Subscribers can enjoy earlier access and a full-range of related guidance. Click here for a free trial.
0330 161 1234