Wycombe Demolition Ltd v Topevent Ltd

An adjudication concerning valuation, termination and payment may constitute a single dispute where the issues are financially and factually linked. A party that knowingly participates in an adjudication without reserving a jurisdiction objection may lose the right to rely on it at enforcement. The adjudicator controls the procedure and may reach an independent valuation from the material supplied, provided that the adjudicator does not create an entirely new case or rely on material which the parties were told to ignore. A site visit is not generally required where the dispute can be resolved from documents and any procedural deficiency would not be material. Summary judgment was granted to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.

Wycombe Demolition Ltd carried out demolition works for Topevent Ltd. An adjudicator awarded Wycombe £113,666.63, plus interest and fees. Topevent resisted enforcement on three grounds: that multiple disputes had been referred; that the adjudicator’s refusal to hold a site meeting breached natural justice; and that the valuation had been decided on a basis not advanced by either party. Topevent also referred to a counterclaim for completion costs, which the adjudicator had rejected. The central issues were whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction and whether any procedural or valuation error was sufficiently material to prevent enforcement.

1. Summary judgment granted. The jurisdictional and natural justice objections were rejected, and the adjudicator’s decision was enforced with interest and costs.
2. The valuation claim and the financial consequences of cessation of the works formed one dispute. They were components of the overall payment claim and were linked because valuation required consideration of incomplete work. The approach in Whitney Town Council v Beam Construction (Cheltenham) Ltd [2011] EWHC 2332 (TCC) supported that conclusion.
3. Even if the matters were separate disputes, Topevent had fully participated in the adjudication and had positively sought determination of the termination issue. Its failure to reserve the jurisdiction objection gave the adjudicator jurisdiction in any event. The principle explained in CN Associates (a firm) v Holbeton Ltd [2011] EWHC 43 (TCC) did not assist a party which knew the relevant facts but failed to raise an obvious point.
4. The adjudicator was entitled to control the procedure and decide whether a site visit or meeting was necessary. The valuation was principally a paper exercise, and photographs were available. There was no breach of natural justice, and any alleged breach would have been immaterial. The court relied on ROK Building Ltd v Celtic Composting Systems Ltd No 2 [2010] EWHC 66 (TCC) and Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] EWHC 282 (TCC).
5. An adjudicator has considerable latitude to reach conclusions from the material provided and need not select one party’s figures. That latitude does not permit the adjudicator, without warning, to remedy deficiencies in a party’s case or rely on material expressly excluded from consideration. The decisions in Balfour Beaty Construction Ltd v The London Borough of Lambeth [2002] EWHC 597 (TCC) and Primus Build Ltd v Pompei Centre [2009] BLR 437 were distinguishable.
6. The counterclaim could not resist enforcement because it had already been considered and rejected by the adjudicator.

First instance decision. The judgment itself does not state any subsequent appellate history.