VMA Services Limited v Project One London Limited

In a construction adjudication, the statutory obligation to pay a notified sum ordinarily takes priority over a true-value adjudication. A responding party may raise the notified-sum issue as a defence, but will generally lack jurisdiction to obtain an independent monetary award. An exception arises where the adjudicator has determined that a specific sum is immediately due to the respondent. In that situation, the court may enforce the binding determination and the adjudicator may order payment, without requiring a further adjudication. Any further dispute about the true value is for legal proceedings. The court should not permit technical jurisdictional or natural justice challenges based on combing through an adjudicator’s reasons where the parties had a fair opportunity to address the issue.

VMA sought summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision dated 10 February 2025. Project One London had referred a true-value dispute concerning interim payment application No 8. VMA responded that Project One London had failed to serve valid payment or pay less notices and was therefore obliged to pay the notified sum.

The adjudicator accepted VMA’s defence, decided that £106,434.88 was due, and ordered Project One London to pay that sum with interest. He did not determine the true value of the works. The central issue was whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make a monetary award in favour of a responding party.

1. Enforcement. The adjudicator’s decision was enforced. The adjudicator had jurisdiction to order Project One London to pay the notified sum to VMA.
2. The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998 establish an immediate obligation to pay a notified sum where no valid payment notice or pay less notice has been served. The payer’s entitlement to commence or rely on a true-value adjudication is subordinate to that payment obligation. This principle applies whether or not the contractor has first obtained an adjudication award.
3. A responding party may raise a wide range of defences and counterclaims to defeat the referring party’s claim. That does not ordinarily confer jurisdiction to make an independent monetary award in the respondent’s favour. The general position described in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25 therefore remained applicable in ordinary cases.
4. The present case was materially different. The adjudicator had expressly determined that a particular notified sum was immediately due to VMA. In those circumstances, the reasoning in WRW Construction Limited v Datblygau Davies Developments Limited [2020] EWHC 1965 (TCC) was persuasive and was followed. Requiring a second adjudication merely to obtain payment of a sum already determined to be due would undermine the temporary binding effect of adjudication and the statutory policy of improving cash flow.
5. Under paragraph 23(2) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998, the parties were bound to comply with the adjudicator’s decision until final determination. Any further dispute about the true amount due was for legal proceedings, not a further adjudication seeking to reopen the immediate payment obligation.
6. The remaining objections were rejected. The adjudicator had acted fairly, the parties had addressed the notified-sum issue at length, and there was no breach of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction. The court deprecated attempts to comb through an adjudicator’s reasons to identify technical challenges, following the approach in Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard [2005] EWCA 1358.

Not stated in the judgment. This was a first-instance decision on VMA’s application to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.