J & B Hopkins Ltd v Trant Engineering Ltd

Adjudication exists to secure interim cash flow. An adjudicator’s decision will ordinarily be enforced by summary judgment where the adjudicator had jurisdiction and broadly observed natural justice, even if the decision may contain errors of fact or law. A later interim payment application may correct the true value of earlier work, but it does not retrospectively remove the earlier notified sum or prevent an adjudication about it. Participation in later payment cycles does not create an estoppel. A stay of execution is exceptional and requires a risk of manifest injustice. It is not a means of reconsidering the underlying merits. Later valid notices, or the possibility of repayment in a future adjudication, will not ordinarily justify withholding payment.

The claimant sought summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision dated 2 March 2020. The adjudicator had decided that £812,484.94 plus VAT was payable under Interim Payment Application 26 because the defendant had served no valid payment notice or payless notice.

The defendant did not challenge jurisdiction or natural justice. It argued that later interim payment cycles and valid notices had corrected or superseded the earlier entitlement. It also sought a stay of execution on the ground of manifest injustice. The central issues were whether later payment cycles prevented enforcement of the decision and whether they justified a stay.

The claim succeeded. The court granted summary judgment enforcing the adjudicator’s decision and dismissed the defendant’s application for a stay of execution.

1. Enforcement principle. The court applied the established approach in Macob Civil Engineering Limited v Morrison Construction Limited [1999] EWHC Tech 254 and Hutton Construction Limited v Wilson Properties (London) Limited [2017] BLR 344. An adjudicator’s decision is enforced despite errors of fact or law, or disagreement with the underlying merits, provided the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction and broadly complied with natural justice. The defendant advanced neither jurisdictional nor natural justice grounds.
2. Correction principle. Following the approach confirmed in S&T (UK) Limited v Grove Developments Limited 2018 EWCA Civ 2488, a later interim application may correct the true value of earlier work. That principle does not mean that the sum due on the earlier application was never payable. The failure to serve the required notices made the notified sum due for that payment cycle.
3. Later payment cycles. Subsequent applications and notices do not extinguish an earlier dispute or make it incapable of adjudication. A contractor’s participation in later interim applications does not create an estoppel. A qualifying construction contract permits adjudication at any time, and a contrary approach would undermine the statutory notice regime and the policy of prompt enforcement.
4. Stay of execution. The jurisdiction to stay enforcement is limited to cases involving a risk of manifest injustice. The possibility of repayment in a later adjudication is ordinarily insufficient. The unusual circumstances considered in Galliford Try Building Limited v Estura Limited [2015] 4 BLR 321 were absent, and a stay must not become an examination of the merits of the underlying dispute.

not stated in the judgment.