J & M Resurfacing Ltd v Orbital Site Services Ltd

Adjudicators’ decisions are ordinarily enforced on an interim basis, even where the adjudicator may have made an error of fact, law or procedure. The court may refuse enforcement where the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction or committed a serious breach of natural justice, including deciding a question that was not referred or acting in an obviously unfair manner. Such intervention is exceptional. A patent error of law within the adjudicator’s jurisdiction is not, by itself, a ground for refusing enforcement.

The claimant sought summary judgment under Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules to enforce an adjudicator’s decision awarding sums for road surfacing and repair works. The defendant argued that the adjudicator had made a plain error of law by awarding payment despite finding that the works were incomplete and defective, contrary to the staged payment provisions of the contract.

The central issue was whether an alleged error of law, without any excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice, justified refusing to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.

1. Enforcement principles. The court followed the principles summarised in Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard [2006] BLR 15. Adjudication does not ordinarily determine the parties’ final rights, and the adjudicator’s decision must generally be enforced despite errors of fact, law or procedure.
2. The recognised exceptions are where the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction or committed a serious breach of natural justice. The court must examine technical defences critically. It should intervene only in rare circumstances, such as where the question decided was not the question referred or the adjudicator’s method was obviously unfair.
3. Application. The adjudicator determined the payment dispute referred to him. He considered the defendant’s case that no further sums were due until satisfactory completion, accepted that the works were incomplete and defective, and deducted the estimated remedial costs from the amount awarded. The alleged error therefore concerned the merits of a question within his jurisdiction.
4. There was no excess of jurisdiction and no breach of natural justice. The alleged patent error of law did not justify resisting enforcement.
5. Enforcement was ordered and judgment was entered for the claimant in the revised sum of £38,757.18.

First-instance adjudication enforcement and summary judgment application. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.