Home Group Limited v MPS Housing Limited

Complexity and the pressure of an adjudication timetable do not, without more, justify refusing enforcement. The question is whether the adjudicator understood the dispute, could do broad justice, and whether the responding party had a fair opportunity to address the material before and during the adjudication. A breach of natural justice must also be material and affect the outcome. Courts should approach such challenges with scepticism because adjudication is intended to provide a speedy, temporarily binding answer. Where a claim involves substantial data, the adjudicator may use proportionate spot checks or sampling. An alleged error in that methodology is ordinarily an error of fact or procedure, not a basis for refusing enforcement, unless it involves a material denial of natural justice.

Home Group sought summary enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision requiring MPS Housing to pay over £6.5 million arising from MPS’s repudiatory breach of a measured term construction contract. MPS accepted that the dispute was capable of adjudication but argued that the volume and complexity of the material, the short response period, and restricted access to underlying data prevented it from fairly presenting its case. It contended that the resulting decision was reached in breach of natural justice. The central issue was whether the adjudication process had denied MPS a fair opportunity to respond in a manner that materially affected the outcome.

1. The claim for enforcement succeeded. The adjudicator’s decision was enforced by summary judgment.

2. Section 108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and paragraph 1(1) of the Scheme permit any crystallised dispute arising under a construction contract to be referred to adjudication. The statutory timetable, reflected in paragraph 19(1) of the Scheme, necessarily creates pressure for the parties and adjudicator.

3. Adjudication decisions must generally be enforced despite errors of procedure, fact or law. Enforcement may be refused for a breach of natural justice only where the breach is material and has led to a material difference in the outcome. Complexity and limited time are inherent features of adjudication and are not, by themselves, grounds for resisting enforcement.

4. The relevant inquiry focuses on whether the adjudicator sufficiently appreciated the issues and was satisfied that broad justice could be done, together with the responding party’s opportunities before and during the adjudication to address the material. Where the adjudicator has considered those matters and expressed a clear ability to decide the dispute fairly, the court will be extremely slow to interfere.

5. An adjudicator dealing with a substantial volume of data may use spot checks, sampling, categorisation, or other proportionate methods. The choice and execution of that methodology are ordinarily matters of substantive determination. They do not establish a natural justice breach unless accompanied by a particular and material procedural transgression.

6. MPS had received the draft expert report and appendices weeks before the referral, had been offered access to underlying information, and produced a comprehensive response identifying substantial areas of dispute. The adjudicator considered the evidence on duplication and was entitled to reject MPS’s proposed further deduction. MPS therefore had a fair opportunity to present its case, and no material breach of natural justice was established.

7. Judgment was entered for Home Group in the sum of £6,565,931.94, together with interest of £197,676.51, further daily interest, and £41,259.66 for the adjudicator’s fees, with further interest on the fees to be calculated by the parties.