Synergy Gas Services Ltd v Northern Gas Heating Ltd

Adjudication decisions will ordinarily be enforced by summary judgment. The court should intervene for breach of natural justice only where the question decided was plainly outside the referral or the adjudication was obviously unfair. Challenges based on detailed examination of a rapid adjudication are strongly discouraged. Written pleadings must be read together with supporting documents, including Scott Schedules. An issue need not be expressed in the precise form ultimately adopted by the adjudicator if its substance was covered by the parties’ materials.

Synergy sought summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision requiring Northern to pay £74,898.07, together with the adjudicator’s fees of £11,142.72. Northern had paid £45,697.79 shortly before the hearing and resisted judgment for the balance.

Northern argued that the adjudicator had breached natural justice by deciding that notice under clause 14.4 of the subcontract was a precondition to deduction or set-off for remedial works, although that formulation had not been expressly pleaded or raised by the adjudicator. The central issue was whether the point had nevertheless been sufficiently canvassed in the written materials.

1. Enforcement principles. Adjudication is intended to provide a speedy answer with interim finality. The court should refuse enforcement for natural justice reasons only in the plainest cases, where the proceedings were obviously unfair or the adjudicator decided a question outside the reference.
2. The principles in Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd [2006] BLR 15, Beumer Group UK Ltd v Vinci Construction UK Ltd [2016] EWHC 2283 and CG Group Ltd v Breyer Group Ltd [2013] EWHC 2722 required the court to allow for the constraints of adjudication and to avoid a minute examination of the parties’ arguments.
3. Although the Response and Reply did not expressly plead that a clause 14.4 notice was a condition precedent, the pleadings had to be read with the Scott Schedules. Synergy repeatedly alleged that it had not been given an opportunity to inspect or remedy the alleged defects. That material sufficiently raised the requirement which the adjudicator applied. The point was therefore covered by the presented arguments and the adjudication was not obviously unfair.
4. The natural justice challenge was rejected. Summary judgment was granted to enforce the adjudicator’s decision to the extent unpaid. Judgment was entered for Synergy, with the wording of the order to be agreed.