balance being due to it, to have to commence a further adjudication (to which there is no defence) for the purpose of obtaining an order for payment from the adjudicator before returning to the court if necessary, for further enforcement proceedings.
20 - In my judgment, the submission that a further adjudication award is required is not supported by the authorities’.
The court found this persuasive in the circumstances of the present case where the adjudicator found that the Notified Sum was due. The court allowed that in many cases the rationale in Bresco ‘will prevail and there will be no jurisdiction to make a monetary award in favour of a respondent. However, where there is a determination that a particular sum is immediately due to a respondent, different considerations apply.’ The court was fortified in this approach by paragraph 23(2) of the Scheme, which states that ‘the decision of the adjudicator shall be binding on the parties, and they shall comply with it until the dispute is finally determined.’ The adjudicator decided that the Notified Sum was due to VMA, and both parties were bound to comply. It would be an arid exercise to require VMA to start another adjudication to recover a sum already determined to be due to them, and quite contrary to the policy of the Act and the Scheme. Other issues raised by POL were dismissed by the Judge as an attempt to comb through the reasons to identify points which might be used to challenge the decision – a practice long since deprecated. The adjudicator had considered the issues, and each party had commented on them at length. The adjudicator had acted within their jurisdiction, finding that the sum due to VMA was enforceable.
Comment
As in the case of WRW, a distinction appears to be drawn between the power of an adjudicator to order payment of a sum of money to a responding party on the one hand, and the power of the court to order payment to be made to give effect to an adjudicator’s decision, whether it be expressed as a declaration as to a sum due or a finding and order for payment. It may even be possible for the court to go one stage further and order such payment when that is the unarguable effect of the adjudicator’s findings. Jurisdiction – application of residential occupier exception and overturning adjudicator’s order as to fees RBH Building Contractors Ltd v Ashley James and Tracy James [2025] EWHC 2005 (TCC) Neil Moody KC (judgment 10 June 2025)
8
www.ciarb.org
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online