Niken Construction Ltd v Trigram Carver Street Ltd

Adjudication decisions under the Construction Act are binding and enforceable on an interim basis until the underlying dispute is finally determined. A party cannot resist enforcement merely because it disputes the adjudicator’s findings, intends to litigate the merits, or raises complex factual and legal issues. Enforcement may be refused where the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction or committed a serious breach of natural justice. Procedural devices such as consolidation do not ordinarily override the successful party’s right to enforce a valid decision.

Niken sought summary judgment enforcing the adjudicator’s third decision, which awarded it approximately £180,000 following the termination of a JCT design and build contract. Trigram argued that the adjudicator’s earlier and later decisions were wrong, involved jurisdictional and natural justice errors, and should await determination of Trigram’s separate Part 7 proceedings. Trigram also sought consolidation of the proceedings. The central issues were whether any challenge affected the validity or enforceability of the adjudicator’s decision and whether consolidation justified withholding summary judgment.

1. Summary judgment granted. The adjudicator’s third decision was valid and enforceable. Trigram established no jurisdictional error, serious breach of natural justice, or other sufficient reason to refuse enforcement.
2. The right to have the underlying dispute finally determined by litigation, arbitration or another process does not prevent enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision in the meantime. The statutory scheme requires payment now, with the merits capable of being argued later.
3. The court adopted the established principles that adjudication is provisional; errors of fact, law or procedure do not generally invalidate a decision; enforcement may be refused for excess of jurisdiction or serious natural justice breaches; and technical defences require critical scrutiny.
4. Trigram’s complaints that the adjudicator misunderstood the contractual obligation to proceed regularly and diligently, failed to consider earlier delay, or failed to address contractual provisions were challenges to the merits. They did not amount to natural justice complaints. The adjudicator had in any event considered earlier events and was required to examine the continuation of the specified default.
5. The complexity or substantial nature of the underlying dispute, the existence of separate proceedings, and the possibility of a successful defence at trial were irrelevant to the enforcement application. They did not justify withholding summary judgment.
6. The application to consolidate was rejected. Consolidation could not be used to displace Niken’s substantive right to enforce the valid adjudication decision. Trigram’s cross-application failed.

The judgment is a first-instance decision. It records earlier adjudications between the parties but no appeal from a lower court judgment.