separate and distinct subcontracts. To uphold the defendant’s objection would have been to deny the claimant its statutory right to adjudicate its claim under the second subcontract because it had succeeded in a similar claim under the first subcontract. On proper application of the principles in Sudlows, [7] the defendant’s case was hopeless. There was no prospect of persuading a court that these disputes were the same.
Pre-determination
The judge was not satisfied that there was anything more than a fanciful prospect of persuading a court at trial that the adjudicator had predetermined the result of the second adjudication by reason of his findings in the first adjudication. By refusing to participate (albeit under a reservation), the defendant left itself open to an unopposed finding similar to that in the first adjudication and gave the adjudicator ‘no ammunition’ to proceed differently. Crucially, the adjudicator did not approach matters on a ‘default basis’ but properly reviewed the evidence before reaching a decision on that evidence. This was not a situation the judge felt ‘gets off the ground’. Summary judgment granted. Natural justice – sufficiency of reasons Clegg Food Projects Ltd v Prestige Car Direct Properties Ltd [2025] EWHC 2173(TCC) Her Honour Judge Kelly (judgment 19 August 2025) The claimant contractor sought to enforce an adjudicator’s award in its favour against the defendant employer, in a dispute arising out of an amended joint contracts tribunal (JCT) Design and Build Contract for the construction of a leisure and retail centre in Bishop Auckland, County Durham.
The background
The dispute arose out of an application for payment 37 following practical completion, in respect of which the defendant gave a payment notice for a lesser sum. The issues then included the valuation of eight variations (agreed to be ‘changes’, but not agreed as to value), the claimant’s entitlement to a time extension and prolongation costs. The defendant claimed liquidated damages (LDs) for the delay.
The adjudication
The dispute was referred to adjudication by the claimant, who asked the adjudicator to decide the value of Application 37, including the eight changes and loss and expense in the sum claimed or such other sum as the adjudicator might decide. The defendant asked the adjudicator to value the Application in the sum it asserted was correct, taking into account the LDs claimed, or such other sum as the adjudicator might determine.
8
www.ciarb.org
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting