Bellway Homes Limited v Surgo Construction Limited

For adjudication jurisdiction, a referral may contain alternative routes to determining a single disputed claim for payment. The court should adopt a broad interpretation of dispute and apply robust common sense, considering the nature of the dispute and how it was presented. Different statutory payment mechanisms and a true-value assessment do not necessarily constitute independent disputes where they concern the same payment application and seek the same ultimate remedy.

An adjudicator who rejects a payment application for the purposes of a default-payment claim may nevertheless assess the true value of the works where that alternative basis was expressly referred. The adjudicator’s jurisdiction is determined by the notice and the dispute fairly characterised in its factual context.

Bellway Homes Limited sought summary judgment to enforce a true-value adjudication decision awarding £148,431.70 plus interest and VAT. The adjudication concerned an application for payment made by Roundel Manufacturing Limited under a subcontract with Surgo Construction Limited. Roundel’s rights had been assigned to Bellway.

The notice advanced two alternative routes to payment: a default-payment, or smash-and-grab, claim based on the absence of valid notices, and a substantive true-value assessment. Surgo argued that these were multiple disputes referred without consent and that, once the application was held invalid for smash-and-grab purposes, the adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction by assessing true value.

1. One dispute. The referral concerned a single disputed claim for the sum due under the December 2022 payment application. The default-payment and true-value routes were alternative means of determining that claim. Applying the broad approach in Witney v Beam Construction [2011] EWHC 2332, the court asked whether the matter could fairly be described as a single disputed claim or as independent disputes. The wording of the notice, the common payment application, the common factual basis and the common objective all pointed to one dispute.
2. The court rejected an over-legalistic analysis based on the distinction between statutory notified-sum provisions and substantive valuation. Although the smash-and-grab issue could be decided without deciding true value, the true-value issue was presented as an alternative route within the same payment dispute. The adjudicator therefore had jurisdiction to determine both routes.
3. No excess of jurisdiction. The notice expressly stated that, alternatively, Bellway was entitled to an amount due up to the end of December 2022 calculated on a substantive basis. The referral notice also asked the adjudicator to ascertain the true value of the application and the value of work performed to that date.
4. The adjudicator’s finding that the application did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a smash-and-grab claim did not amount to a finding that it was incapable of being an application for payment for all purposes. His subsequent references to the application, his substantive valuation and his award of interest showed that he was determining the expressly referred alternative true-value claim.
5. The reliance on Stellite v Vascroft [2016] BLR 402 QBD (TCC) was misplaced. That case concerned an attempt to use general wording to introduce a different and unliquidated claim. Here, the true-value route was specifically pleaded and formed part of the referred dispute.
6. The enforcement application succeeded. Bellway was entitled to summary judgment for the sums claimed.