LJH Paving Ltd v Meeres Civil Engineering Ltd

A dispute for adjudication crystallises when the claim has been communicated and the responding party has had a reasonable opportunity to consider it, and it becomes apparent that the claim is not admitted. A claim does not ordinarily remain uncrystallised merely because further particulars or supporting documents are requested. The exceptional case is one where the claim is so nebulous and ill-defined that the respondent cannot sensibly respond. A jurisdictional objection must be sufficiently specific and raised in the adjudication; a vague reservation of rights is ineffective. An adjudicator’s jurisdiction is determined by the notice of adjudication. An incorrect decision on the substantive entitlement to a sum does not necessarily constitute a jurisdictional error, and a readily identifiable invalid part may be severed.

LJH Paving Limited sought summary judgment to enforce four adjudicators’ decisions concerning construction contracts with Meeres Civil Engineering Limited. Meeres accepted that three decisions should be enforced but resisted enforcement of the Westfield Final Account Adjudication.

Meeres argued that no dispute had crystallised because LJH had not supplied sufficient substantiation before commencing adjudication. It also argued that the adjudicator had addressed a sum relating to works allegedly performed under a separate Highbury & Islington contract. The central issues were whether a dispute had crystallised, whether the jurisdictional objections had been waived, whether the separate-contract issue went to jurisdiction, and whether any invalid part could be severed.

1. Crystallisation. The court applied the principles stated in Fastrack Construction Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd [2000] BLR 168 and Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2004] EWHC 2339 (TCC), endorsed on appeal at [2005] EWCA Civ 291. The relevant question was whether the claim had been brought to Meeres’s attention and whether it had had an opportunity to admit, modify or reject it. LJH’s Final Payment Claim contained a summary and extensive supporting spreadsheets. Meeres’s detailed queries showed that it understood the claim and was able to respond to it. Its requests for substantiation therefore concerned the merits, not crystallisation.
2. The exception identified in Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport—a claim so nebulous and ill-defined that the respondent cannot sensibly respond—was not engaged. The court also relied on AMD Environmental Ltd v Cumberland Construction Ltd [2016] 165 Con LR 191: further particularisation ordinarily proceeds alongside valuation and does not prevent a dispute arising. Meeres’s unequivocal rejection of the claim on contractual-validity grounds independently crystallised a dispute concerning the Final Payment Claim as a whole.
3. Waiver. The proposed objection based on insufficient substantiation had not been advanced specifically in the adjudication. The objection actually made concerned contractual non-compliance and the validity of the Final Payment Claim. General reservations were ineffective. The court applied Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2019] 182 ConLR 1, paras 92(iii) and 93.
4. Multiple contracts and severance. Following RWE NPower Plc v Alstom Power Limited [2009] EWHC B40, the adjudicator’s jurisdiction derived from the notice of adjudication, which was confined to the Westfield Contract. Whether the claimed sum was substantively due under that contract was for the adjudicator. Even if jurisdiction were absent in respect of that identifiable sum, it could be deducted by severance. Summary judgment was granted on the four adjudicators’ decisions for £223,414 including VAT, together with interest.

Not stated in the judgment.