Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court refused to enforce an adjudication decision because there was credible evidence that the claimant had made fraudulent misrepresentations in its adjudication submissions.

An adjudicator has the ability to correct an accidental error or omission provided they do so within a reasonable time of making their decision. This is known as the ‘slip rule’ as it applies where an adjudicator’s mistake is an 'inadvertent slip' which does not reflect their first thought and intention. This rule was implied pursuant to common law (in the absence of any agreement to the contrary). However, the slip rule is now encapsulated in section 108(3A) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996) (as introduced by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which applies to contracts entered into on or after 1 October 2011 in England and Wales and 1 November 2011 in Scotland). HGCRA 1996, s 108(3A) requires a contract to include a written provision 'permitting the adjudicator to correct his decision so as to remove a clerical or typographical error arising by accident or omission'. Further provisions are included in Part I of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (as amended) such that:

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) granted summary judgment enforcing an adjudicator’s award in favour of United Utilities Water Ltd. Farrans’ Part 8 claim sought declarations that payment notice PA-70 was invalid, or that no pay less notice was required. Her Honour Judge Kelly declined to determine those issues under Part 8 because the court could not resolve the objective construction of the notice without evidence of the relevant factual matrix, including the amended NEC3 payment regime and the use of cloud based IT systems. The decision underlines that Part 8 is unsuitable where payment notice validity depends on contested or undeveloped contextual evidence.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) enforced an adjudicator’s decision awarding liquidated damages and rejected a contractor’s attempt to resist enforcement through parallel Part 8 proceedings. HG Construction argued that an exchange of emails on 8 February 2023 created a binding agreement revising contractual completion dates and that the adjudicator had failed to take that agreement into account. The court held that no such binding agreement existed and that, in any event, the point had not been advanced as a defence in the adjudication. The decision reinforces the courts’ robust approach to adjudication enforcement and illustrates the difficulty of recasting contractual extension-of-time machinery as a separate settlement agreement after an adjudicator’s decision has been issued.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) declined to enforce an adjudicator's decision, on the basis that the claimant had made a false statement regarding a conflict of interest in its application for the appointment of an adjudicator. The court found that the claimant’s conduct deprived the adjudicator of jurisdiction.

Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [insert location] OR Technology and Construction

Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [insert location] OR Technology and Construction Court (KBD) Between

Construction analysis: The Outer House of the Court of Session enforced an adjudicator’s award of £113,767 in favour of the pursuer, Entexol. Lord Lake rejected the defender (Sked Construction)’s contention that the adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice by concluding that ‘time was at large’, although neither party had advanced that case. Properly analysed, that conclusion merely followed from the adjudicator’s rejection of Sked’s asserted contractual completion date, an issue already before him. An adjudicator was not required to warn a party that its case might be rejected and invite an alternative case. A separate £10,000 claim remained unresolved because it raised a disputed factual issue.

Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [insert location] OR Technology and Construction Court (KBD) Between [insert

Produced in association with 4 Pump Court This Practice Note considers the possibility of using insolvency proceedings to enforce an adjudicator’s decision. For guidance on the ability of an insolvent party to pursue an adjudication, and enforce an adjudicator’s decision, see Practice Notes: The right to adjudicate—Restrictions and limitations on right to adjudicate and Adjudication—resisting enforcement using a stay of execution—Claimant in liquidation, administration or a CVA. Use of insolvency proceedings in adjudication enforcement Insolvency proceedings will rarely be the most efficient or appropriate means of enforcing the decision of an adjudicator. The Technology and Construction Court’s (TCC’s) enforcement procedures are specifically tailored for quick adjudication enforcement, and the test to be applied varies from that which is usually applied in insolvency proceedings. In Harlow & Milner v Linda Teasdale, the TCC noted (when considering costs incurred in bankruptcy proceedings which had since been withdrawn) that: • it was not easy to understand why the bankruptcy proceedings had been issued. The appropriate way of enforcing the adjudicator's decision was to issue enforcement proceedings in the

A process which gives creditors a right or security over heritable property owned by the debtor, either alone or following inhibition. The creditor must first have a decree or other relevant document of debt

This Practice Note considers the current position on adjudication for debt in Scottish civil proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Act 2007 (BD(S)A 2007). However, see Adjudication for debt—anticipated future developments, below. For guidance on: • other forms of diligence in Scottish civil procedure, see Practice Note: Enforcement in Scottish civil litigation which, in turn, links through to detailed guidance on a number of forms of diligence available in Scotland • the equivalent in England and Wales, see: Introduction to enforcement—overview which, as well as giving an overview of this topic, links through to more detailed guidance on various aspects of domestic enforcement in England and Wales • cross-border enforcement, see Practice Note: Cross-border enforcement—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners which, as well as giving an overview of this topic, links through to more detailed guidance on various aspects of cross-border enforcement Key: • BD(S)A 2007—Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Act 2007 • CJJA 1982—Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 • D(S)A 1987—Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 Adjudication