Laing O’Rourke Delivery Limited v Shepperton Studios Limited

In adjudication-enforcement proceedings, the court may consider related Part 8 proceedings only where the issue is short and self-contained, requires no further evidence or elaboration, and would be unconscionable to ignore on summary judgment. The reference in Hutton Construction Limited v Wilson Properties (London) Ltd to an obviously wrong decision does not impose an additional substantive test.

A payment notice under a contract requiring the basis of calculation must identify the constituent elements of the gross valuation. Earlier payment-cycle documents do not cure the defect unless incorporated by reference. However, a defective payment notice does not invalidate a sufficiently detailed pay less notice. Separate adjudication decisions cannot ordinarily be set off without separate enforcement proceedings. A parent-company guarantee may displace the usual stay of execution arising from insolvency.

The claimant sought enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision requiring the defendant to pay the notified sum under an interim payment cycle. The adjudicator had found that the defendant’s Payment Notice and Pay Less Notice were invalid because the Payment Notice did not explain how the gross valuation had been calculated.

The defendant relied on pending Part 8 proceedings challenging the construction of the notices, five later adjudication decisions concerning delay, bonuses and deductions, and the claimant’s alleged insolvency. The court considered whether the Part 8 issues could be addressed within the enforcement hearing, whether the later adjudications affected enforcement, and whether execution should be stayed.

1. Part 8 gateway. The court applied the guidance in paragraph 9.4.5 of the TCC Guide. A related Part 8 issue may be determined in enforcement proceedings where it is short and self-contained, requires no oral evidence or further elaboration, and would be unconscionable for the court to ignore. Hutton Construction Limited v Wilson Properties (London) Ltd did not impose a separate requirement that the adjudicator’s decision be obviously wrong. The construction issue here was not sufficiently straightforward for that gateway, although it could be decided after full argument.
2. Payment Notice. Under clauses 4.7.5, 4.13 and 4.14 of the building contract, a Payment Notice had to identify the amounts comprising the Alternative B gross valuation. Merely stating the gross valuation, deductions and balance was insufficient. Earlier spreadsheets did not cure the defect because they were not incorporated by express reference into the notice. The adjudicator was therefore correct that Payment Notice 45 was invalid. The approach in S&T (UK) Limited v Grove Developments Limited did not assist because the necessary incorporation by reference was absent.
3. Pay Less Notice. The Pay Less Notice remained valid because it separately and sufficiently detailed the deductions. Under clauses 4.9.3, 4.9.5 and 4.10.1, the invalid Payment Notice meant that the sum in the interim payment application became the starting point, subject to the detailed deductions in the Pay Less Notice. The notice was not contaminated merely because its calculation began with an incorrect gross valuation.
4. Later adjudications. The five later decisions could not be used to reduce the judgment sum. Applying HS Works Limited v Enterprise Managed Services Limited, separate adjudication decisions should be enforced or given effect to where valid and enforceable, but set-off requires separate proceedings to enforce each decision. Permission to defend to the value of those decisions would have the same impermissible effect as set-off.
5. Stay of execution. The court accepted the usual starting position in Wimbledon v Vago that a stay will usually be granted where the claimant is in insolvent liquidation or insolvency is undisputed. The evidence did not displace that starting point. However, the continuing, irrevocable and unconditional parent-company guarantee, governed by English law, provided an alternative source of recovery and displaced the prima facie entitlement to a stay. Judgment was entered for £3,198,660.64 plus VAT, with contractual interest from 22 August 2025. Costs and consequential matters were left for agreement.