Westwood Structural Services Ltd v Blyth Wood Park Management Company Ltd

An adjudicator’s decision must be enforced unless the adjudicator answered a question not referred or proceeded in an obviously unfair manner. An error of fact or law does not ordinarily invalidate the decision. A contractual provision postponing payment after determination of the contractor’s employment cannot defeat sums which an adjudicator has ordered to be paid where the adjudicator has already decided that issue and the decision is binding.

The claimant sought summary judgment under CPR Part 24 to enforce two adjudicators’ decisions arising from a JCT Minor Works contract. The first decision determined that practical completion had occurred and ordered payment for work carried out before the defendant later determined the claimant’s employment. The second decision held that clause 7.2.3 did not postpone payment of sums awarded by the first decision. The defendant argued that payment was deferred until completion of remedial works. The central issue was whether that provision supplied a defence to enforcement.

1. The claimant was entitled to summary judgment for £48,583.31 inclusive of interest. The court ordered payment.
2. The enforcement principles stated in Carillion Construction Limited v Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited [2005] EWCA Civ 1358 were applicable. The court should respect and enforce an adjudicator’s decision unless the question decided was not referred or the adjudicator’s procedure was obviously unfair.
3. Consistently with Bouygues (UK) Limited v Dahl-Jensen (UK) Limited [2000] BLR 522 and C & B Scene Concept Design Limited v Isobars Limited [2002] BLR 93, an error of fact or law does not make the decision a nullity where the adjudicator answered the question referred.
4. Decision 1 determined that payment had become overdue by 13 February 2008. That determination was binding, whether right or wrong, and the sum was due and payable.
5. Decision 2 had separately determined that clause 7.2.3 did not apply to sums arising from an adjudicator’s decision. The defendant could not rely on the clause to avoid payment.
6. By way of comment, the court considered that an adjudicator’s decision may have a different status from a contractual certificate or payment obligation, depending on the contract and surrounding facts. Melville Dundas v Wimpey [2007] UKHL 18 and Pierce Design International v Mark Johnson & Anr. [2007] EWHC 1691 (TCC) concerned materially different contractual provisions and insolvency-related withholding issues.