Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership LLP v Avison Young (UK) Limited

Subject to jurisdiction and natural justice, the court takes a robust approach to enforcing an adjudicator’s decision. A decision remains binding if the adjudicator addressed the dispute referred, even if the answer or method was wrong. A jurisdictional challenge arises where a different question was decided, or a fundamental error transformed the referred dispute into another one. Reasons are assessed by reading the decision as a whole; they need explain what was decided and why, but need not address every argument. Natural justice permits an adjudicator to reach a conclusion not advanced by either party where the material and issue were fairly canvassed. Summary enforcement is not the occasion to recalculate an award or sever a connected step in the reasoning merely because it may be erroneous.

The claimant engaged the defendant as NEC project manager and supervisor for development works at Gateway South, Coventry. The claimant alleged negligent over-certification of sums due to its contractor and referred the dispute to adjudication.

The adjudicator awarded £8,729,179.33 plus interest. The claimant sought summary judgment to enforce the award. The defendant argued that the adjudicator had decided a valuation dispute rather than a professional-negligence claim, failed to give adequate reasons, breached natural justice by relying on the G&T Assessment without a fair opportunity to respond, and reached errors concerning retention and defects. It also sought severance of parts of the decision.

Summary judgment granted. The claimant was entitled to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.

1. The court applied the robust enforcement approach stated in Global Switch Estates Ltd v Sudlows Ltd [2020] EWHC 3314 (TCC) and Carillion v Devonport Royal Dockyard [2005] EWCA 1358. Errors of fact, law or procedure do not justify refusal of enforcement unless the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction or committed a material breach of natural justice.
2. Under paragraph 22 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts, an adjudicator must give reasons when requested. Following Carillion v Devonport Royal Dockyard [2005] EWHC 778 (TCC) and Thermal Energy Construction Ltd v AE & E Lentjes UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 408 (TCC), adequacy was assessed by reading the decision as a whole. The reasons showed what had been decided and why. The adjudicator was not required to address every argument separately, including the tolerance argument.
3. The adjudicator had identified and determined the referred professional-negligence dispute. The fact that valuation, breach, causation and loss were considered together did not turn the adjudication into a true-value exercise. The guidance in Exyte Hargreaves Ltd v NG Bailey Ltd [2023] EWHC 94 (TCC) and William Verrey Ltd v North West London Communal Mikah [2004] EWHC 1300 (TCC) supported the distinction between answering the right question wrongly and answering a different question. Even assuming the valuation principle associated with Merivale Moore plc v Strutt & Parker [2000] PNLR 498, the adjudicator’s approach was at most the former. Bratt v Jones [2025] EWCA Civ 562 concerned a different issue and did not assist the defendant.
4. There was no breach of natural justice. The adjudicator identified the potential relevance of the G&T Assessment, explained how it might be used, invited submissions and received them. The parties therefore had a fair opportunity to address the material. The approach was consistent with Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] EWHC 282 (TCC) and Roe Brickwork Ltd v Wates Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 3417 (TCC). The adjudicator could accept parts of both parties’ cases and reach intermediate conclusions on retention and defects without inviting a further round of submissions.
5. Severance was inappropriate. The court would not recalculate the award at the summary-enforcement stage merely because an adjudicator’s reasoning was alleged to be wrong. The retention finding formed part of a continuous and connected chain of reasoning leading to one award. Recalculation on a different basis was not severance. The approach in Downs Road Development LLP v Laxmanbhai Construction (UK) Ltd [2021] EWHC 2441 (TCC) applied, while the materially different circumstances in Willow Corp SARL v MTD Contractors Ltd [2019] EWHC 1591 (TCC) did not.