Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v West India Quay Development Company (Eastern) Ltd

Enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision is the ordinary course. The court should interfere only where it is plain that the adjudicator decided a question not referred, acted in a manner that was obviously unfair, or otherwise exceeded jurisdiction. Errors of fact or law do not ordinarily impeach the decision.

A failure to give reasons is not, of itself, a breach of natural justice. Under paragraph 22 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts, reasons are required if requested, but a brief intelligible explanation will generally suffice.

Multiplex applied for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision requiring West India Quay Development Company (Eastern) Ltd to repay liquidated damages deducted under a construction contract. The adjudicator had granted extensions of time for the hotel section and the apartment and penthouse section.

West India Quay alleged that the adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction, breached natural justice by adopting analyses not advanced by the parties, and failed to give adequate reasons. It also sought a stay based on evidence concerning Multiplex’s ability to repay. The central issues were whether those complaints impeached the adjudicator’s decision and whether special circumstances justified a stay.

1. Enforcement. Multiplex was entitled to summary judgment for £1,283,229.80, comprising £1,161,020, interest of £100,571, and unchallenged adjudicator’s fees and expenses of £21,638.80.
2. The statutory purpose of adjudication requires the courts to respect and enforce an adjudicator’s decision unless it is plain that the question decided was not the question referred or that the adjudicator’s method was obviously unfair. A dissatisfied party may pursue final litigation or arbitration for errors of fact or law, but those errors do not ordinarily justify resisting enforcement.
3. The adjudicator did not exceed jurisdiction or act unfairly in assessing Multiplex’s impacted-as-planned analysis, considering the evidence on the two section 1 delay events, and reaching conclusions about the critical delay. He had not adopted a wholly new methodology or created an independent programme, as had occurred in Balfour Beatty v Lambeth London Borough Council. There was no obligation to invite further submissions on conclusions drawn from the parties’ evidence and submissions.
4. For section 2a, the adjudicator had considered West India Quay’s case, and the parties’ critical-path analyses showed that the penthouses were critical. The complaints about the extent of the reasoning did not establish a breach of natural justice.
5. A failure to give reasons is conceptually distinct from the requirements of prior notice and an effective opportunity to make representations, and an unbiased tribunal. Paragraph 22 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts shows that, absent a request or another applicable provision, an adjudicator need not give reasons. Where reasons are requested, a brief statement will generally suffice; only extreme inadequacy causing substantial prejudice may justify non-enforcement. No such basis was established.
6. The application for a stay was refused. The evidence did not establish special circumstances under RSC Order 47, retained by Part 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, or that Multiplex would probably be unable to repay the judgment sum.