J & B Hopkins Limited v A & V Building Soltuions Limited

Adjudication decisions are ordinarily enforced summarily as interim cash-flow measures. The court does not reconsider factual or legal errors, or the merits of the underlying dispute. Enforcement may ordinarily be refused only for want of jurisdiction or material breach of natural justice, subject to narrow recognised exceptions. An adjudicator’s failure to address every submission, or to refer expressly to every document, will not usually invalidate the decision. A contractual completion period does not, without more, create a continuing obligation to perform after expiry where no relevant instruction has been given.

J & B Hopkins Limited sought summary judgment enforcing an adjudicator’s decision arising from plumbing works carried out by A&V Building Solution Limited under a sub-contract. A&V had commenced the adjudication claiming substantial sums for alleged breaches, prevention, delay, variations and payment failures. The adjudicator rejected A&V’s claim and directed payment to J&B Hopkins of £82,956.88, together with the adjudicator’s fees.

A&V resisted enforcement on grounds including alleged breaches of the variation and notice machinery, failures concerning extensions of time and access to the IAuditor system, contra-charges, alleged procedural unfairness and non-compliance with the construction Pre-Action Protocol.

1. Application refused; summary judgment granted. The Pre-Action Protocol did not apply to adjudication enforcement proceedings. J&B Hopkins was therefore not required to comply with it as a condition of enforcement, and A&V’s application for a stay was refused.
2. The governing approach is that an adjudicator’s decision will be enforced notwithstanding errors of fact or law, provided the adjudicator decided the referred issues and broadly complied with natural justice. The principal grounds for refusing enforcement are lack of jurisdiction and material breach of natural justice. Narrow exceptions include an admitted error and certain self-contained payment-notice issues pursued under Part 8.
3. The court would not re-try the adjudicator’s factual findings on labour, delay, completion or contra-charges. The adjudicator had considered the relevant cases and evidence, and his conclusions were within the range of conclusions open to him.
4. The variation provisions did not apply to A&V’s correspondence because it did not identify a contractual variation within the clause 8 machinery. The expiry of the original 52-week period did not itself impose a continuing obligation to perform without an express instruction.
5. The adjudicator’s failure expressly to discuss the IAuditor system, the earlier adjudication, or clause 13.4 did not amount to a material breach of natural justice. He had the relevant evidence and arguments before him, and had reached factual and legal conclusions on the central issues.
6. Although the judge doubted whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to order payment to J&B Hopkins in circumstances where A&V had commenced the adjudication, the conclusion that money was due remained binding. Summary judgment was accordingly entered for £96,918.88, comprising the sub-contract sum and the adjudicator’s fees.