CSK Electrical Contractors Ltd v Kingwood Electrical Services Ltd

Adjudicators’ decisions will ordinarily be enforced summarily. A challenge succeeds only where there is a properly arguable breach of natural justice or want of jurisdiction. A dispute crystallises where the claim has been rejected expressly or by conduct, including failure to respond within the relevant contractual period. A rushed adjudication timetable does not, without more, breach natural justice because expedition is inherent in the process. Jurisdictional objections must be raised at the outset. A natural justice objection may also be waived by a clear and unequivocal act, such as paying the adjudicator’s fees or seeking corrections after the decision. A stay of execution requires evidence that repayment is probably unlikely, subject to the established principles governing adjudication enforcement.

The claimant obtained two adjudicators’ decisions requiring the defendant to pay substantial sums arising from electrical works at Twickenham. The claimant applied for summary judgment to enforce those decisions. The defendant challenged enforcement on the grounds that no dispute had crystallised, the adjudicator’s appointment was invalid, and the timetable was unfair. It also sought a stay of execution based on the claimant’s financial position. The defendant did not appear or have legal representation at the hearing. The central issues were whether the challenges were made out or had been waived, and whether the evidence justified a stay.

1. Enforcement. The court entered judgment enforcing both adjudicators’ decisions. The ordinary rule is summary enforcement, subject to properly arguable jurisdictional or natural justice challenges.
2. Crystallisation. The disputes had crystallised. The defendant had failed to pay the invoices, failed to serve valid payless notices within time, and expressly stated that the claims were unfounded and would be defended. The authorities show that a claim followed by a short period of inactivity may suffice, depending on the circumstances.
3. Appointment. The defendant’s reliance on Eurocom Ltd v Siemens PLC was misplaced. No list of adjudicators had been attached to the appointment request. There was therefore no false statement, fraud or recklessness, and no statement capable of affecting the appointment. The court declined to decide whether a stated preference could itself amount to a misrepresentation.
4. Timetable. The adjudication timetable was not unfair. Adjudication is necessarily a rough and ready process conducted within a strict period. The defendant had possessed the relevant invoices, knew the substance of the dispute, could have sought more time, and identified no real complexity requiring an extension.
5. Waiver. In any event, the challenges had been waived. Jurisdictional objections must be expressly raised at the outset. A natural justice objection requires knowledge of the relevant facts followed by a clear and unequivocal act demonstrating abandonment of the objection. Payment of the adjudicator’s fees and applications to correct the decisions amounted to such acts.
6. Stay. The stay was refused. The claimant’s current financial evidence showed sustained growth and did not establish probable inability to repay. Its position was no worse, and probably better, than when the contracts were made. The sums were ordered to be paid within seven days, together with interest and costs.