This Practice Note provides links to adjudication Precedents available for use by a referring or responding party—both during the adjudication and in enforcement proceedings (including for a stay of enforcement application). It also includes draft advice to clients on the key features of adjudication

The Adjudication Society has appointed a new team to carry out its work in Ireland from 1 November 2023. The new team will be chaired by Éamonn Conlon SC and include Clare Cashin, Jarleth Heneghan and Alan Brady BL. They will work closely with Junior Vice-Chair Arran Dowling-Hussey.

This Practice Note considers the availability and use of declarations under CPR 8 in relation to adjudication proceedings. It looks at the various stages at which a declaration may be sought—before an adjudication has been commenced, while one is on foot and after an adjudication decision has been given. For general guidance on Part 8 claims, see Practice Note: CPR Part 8 claims (alternative procedure for claims). Why are Part 8 proceedings used? In respect of adjudication proceedings, declarations under CPR Part 8 are generally sought in order to: • clarify matters before or during the adjudication—eg to determine a potential breach of natural justice or jurisdictional challenge, or • obtain final determination on a point, the effect of which is to trump the adjudication decision (see, for example, Leeds City Council v Waco) The latter situation is far more common because it is not generally possible to prevent enforcement of an adjudication decision by alleging that it is wrong. A declaration can be a means of indirectly resisting the enforcement of the

Construction analysis: Adjudication has become a key tool in the construction industry, helping employers and contractors resolve disputes quickly and keep cash flowing on projects. But when insolvency enters the picture, things can get tricky—especially when it comes to enforcing adjudication decisions or allowing insolvent parties to take part in the process. In this insight, we take a closer look at the legal approach to the interaction between adjudication and insolvency in England and Wales and Singapore, and what to look forward to in Hong Kong SAR as the Construction Industry Security of Payment Ordinance was gazetted on 27 December 2024 and will come to effect fully on 28 August 2025.

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published. Commencing and progressing adjudication—what do you need to know? In this review of the key adjudication cases from 2016, we consider: • payment notices and final accounts—see below • contract considerations—doubts and amendments—see below • multiple adjudications and disputes—see below • jurisdiction and breach of natural jurisdiction—see below • adjudication enforcement—see below • recovering costs of adjudication—see below Payment notices and final accounts Payment notices and final accounts saw two important decisions this year, that of Mrs Justice O'Farrell in Kilker Projects v Purton dealing with adjudication and the absence of payment notices and that of the Court of Appeal in Complete Building Solutions v Brown and Brown which considered whether disputes as to the validity payment in different years were the same or different disputes. In J Murphy & Sons v W Maher

1 Any dispute or difference arising under or in connection with this [agreement OR Contract] may be referred to an adjudicator appointed at the request of either party by the [Insert details of

Produced in association with 4 Pump Court This Practice Note looks at what an adjudication decision encompasses, whether (and to what extent) reasons for the decision are required and the deadline for the decision. It also consider interim conclusions, the status and effect of a decision and compliance with the decision. What does the decision include? The decision of the adjudicator includes: • the actual award (ie that A is to pay £X to B), and • any finding in relation to the rights of the parties that forms an essential component of, or basis for, that award Where the adjudicator reaches conclusions on matters that are not essential to the calculation of a money award, those conclusions do not form part of the binding decision and may be the subject of a further adjudication (Hyder Consulting v Carillion). The distinction is often drawn as being between the 'operative' and the 'non-operative' parts of the decision—it is only the operative part that binds the parties (and which cannot be referred to a subsequent adjudicator—see Practice Note:

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 was later 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.