Adjudicator meaning

Prepared in conjunction with 4 Pump Court, this Checklist serves as a springboard for a responding party drafting its Response in an adjudication. The matters to be tackled will vary with the dispute’s specific facts and circumstances, but the list sets out the principal points to weigh and directs you to guidance on each. See also Practice Note: Adjudication—the Response for help on the Response, including practical drafting tips, and Checklist: Key issues to consider on receipt of a Notice of Adjudication. Initial considerations Identify any requirements for the Response, including its service deadline and any stipulations as to form and/or content, for example: are there express provisions about the Response in the parties’ contract or the applicable adjudication rules? has the adjudicator issued directions for the Response (which may override contractual requirements)? Timing: there is no statutory time limit for serving a Response, but the adjudicator will usually set a date for service. Consider whether there is sufficient time to review the...

Bellway Homes Limited v Surgo Construction Limited [2024] EWHC 10 (TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? In adjudications governed by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996), a party is permitted to place only one dispute before the adjudicator (HGCRA 1996, s 108(1)). Where more than one dispute is advanced, the adjudicator has no jurisdiction to proceed (Fastrack v Morrison). This decision is the first to address whether a payee’s interim payment claim that proceeds on two alternative footings—(i) the true valuation of the works and/or (ii) entitlement to the sum applied for because no valid payment or pay less notice was served (often termed a ‘smash and grab’ claim)—should be treated as a single dispute. The court concluded that it is one dispute, with the consequence that an adjudicator has jurisdiction to consider both bases within the same reference. The outcome will be of real importance to parties engaged in interim payment contests, as it confirms that valuation and notice-default arguments...

Project One London Ltd v VMA Services Ltd [2025] EWHC 3304 (TCC) What was the background? The parties contracted for the design and installation of mechanical services under their sub-contract, adopting the JCT Design and Build Sub-Contract Agreement Conditions 2016. The agreement included standard interim payment mechanisms, operating in the usual way. VMA lodged Application for Payment No. 8, stating £106,434.88 as the amount due (the Notified Sum). POL failed to issue either a payment notice or a pay less notice at any point. Project One Limited (POL) initiated a TVA. VMA relied on POL’s non-payment of the Notified Sum as a defence, contending on jurisdictional and/or substantive grounds that the TVA could not proceed in the face of that non-payment, and asking the adjudicator to require POL to pay the Notified Sum without delay. The adjudicator determined that VMA had made a valid Application for Payment and that POL had not served a valid Payment Notice and/or Pay Less Notice; it therefore followed that the Notified Sum...

K&J Townmore Construction Ltd v Damien Keogh [2023] IEHC 509 A High Court ruling in K&J Townmore Construction Ltd v Damien Keogh [2023] IEHC 509 is welcome news to many within Ireland’s construction industry. A party sought leave to pursue judicial review of an adjudicator’s decision under the Construction Contracts Act 2013, but the application was refused. That refusal ensures the Act will continue to operate as a practical and useful mechanism for resolving disputes in the construction industry in Ireland, preserving the intended effectiveness of adjudication... Townmore, Cobec’s main contractor, asked the High Court for permission to judicially review the appointment of the adjudicator, Mr Keogh (the Adjudicator). The Adjudicator considered that he had jurisdiction to determine a dispute between Townmore and Cobec under the Construction Contracts Act 2013. Despite Townmore’s assertion that the issue was not a ‘payment dispute’ within section 6(1) of the Act, Mr Keogh refused to resign. Townmore argued that it would be inequitable to wait until the adjudication had run its course...

Prepared in collaboration with 4 Pump Court, this Practice Note condenses the choices open to a party aiming to stop enforcement of an adjudication decision, while also signposting grounds the court has dismissed or rejected. The courts adopt a pro-enforcement stance towards adjudication outcomes and, as set out below, the instances in which a decision will not be enforced (or a stay of execution will be ordered) are tightly constrained. Summary of grounds for resisting enforcement The court will refrain from enforcing an adjudicator’s decision, or grant a stay of execution, only in narrowly defined situations: the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction (see Practice Note: Grounds for a jurisdictional challenge in an adjudication) there was a serious or material breach of natural justice in the adjudication (see Practice Note: Breach of natural justice in adjudication) the referring party is insolvent and/or there is a risk of dissipation of the awarded sum (see Practice Note: Adjudication—resisting enforcement using a stay of execution) fraud occurred during...

This Practice Note provides a concise overview of bankruptcy and its effect on legal proceedings from a dispute resolution standpoint, summarising key points in practice... What is bankruptcy? Bankruptcy is an insolvency route for individuals. It applies to individuals only. Prior to 6 April 2016—and in contrast to corporate liquidation—only the court had power to make an individual bankrupt. From 6 April 2016, a new bankruptcy applications regime took effect, replacing debtors' bankruptcy petitions, though creditors' petitions remained unaffected. Petitions lodged by debtors before that date were unaffected; now, anyone seeking their own bankruptcy must file an online application decided by an adjudicator—an official of the Insolvency Service—rather than the court. For more detail and background, see News Analysis: New bankruptcy applications regime to come into force. Once a bankruptcy order is made—by the court or by the adjudicator—it releases the debtor from liabilities owed to creditors (subject to certain statutory exceptions) and bars unsecured creditors from starting—or continuing with—any legal process against the bankrupt or their property...

Slip rule An adjudicator may, within a reasonable period after handing down their decision, put right any accidental error or omission. Commonly described as the ‘slip rule’, it operates where the adjudicator’s mistake is an inadvertent slip that fails to capture their first intention. Though this principle was implied by common law in the absence of any contrary agreement, it is now set out expressly in section 108(3A) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996). Section 108(3A) was introduced by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and applies to contracts entered into on or after 1 October 2011 in England and Wales, and on or after 1 November 2011 in Scotland. Under HGCRA 1996, s 108(3A), a contract must contain a written term permitting the adjudicator to correct their decision so as to remove a clerical or typographical error arising by accident or omission...

In respect of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, and in respect of an adjudication before [ Name of Adjudicator ] between [ Name of party 1 ], the Referring Party, and [ Name of party 2 ], the Responding Party Referral notice Introduction In accordance with the Notice of Adjudication dated [ date ], this document serves as the Referring Party’s Referral Notice. This Referral Notice is issued with a Bundle that contains a timeline of events alongside pertinent documents: 2.1 chronology of relevant events at tab [ insert ] 2.2 [ insert ] at tab [ insert ] 2.3 [ insert ] at tab [ insert ] The Parties 3 The Referring Party is [ Full Name of Party 1 ] ([ ‘Abbreviated Name of Party 1’ ]) of [ address ], and [ provides OR undertakes ] [ insert services/role Party 1 carries...

Enforcing an adjudicator’s decision We recognise that, after the Adjudicator issued their decision (the Decision), [ insert name of the responding party ] has declined to pay the sums the Adjudicator directed be paid to you. You have asked us to set out what steps you may take against [ insert name of the responding party ] to compel compliance with the Decision. While adjudicators’ decisions are binding as a matter of law, they do not carry the same standing as court judgments, and therefore cannot be executed in the same manner. Consequently, to require [ insert name of the responding party ] to honour the Decision, you will need to apply to the court. A number of court procedures are available to secure enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions. The approach most often adopted-particularly in situations such as this, where the successful party seeks payment of a monetary award made by the adjudicator-is to commence a claim in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC). The TCC has created a dedicated,...

Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Owner ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) whose registered office is at ] [ address ] (Owner) [ name of Developer ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) whose registered office is at ] [ address ] (Developer) 1 Definitions Adjudication Date – the day on which any adjudicator appointed under HGCRA 1996 to determine a dispute regarding an amount due to: (a) the Developer under this Agreement; or (b) the Building Contractor under the Building Contract; delivers their decision; [ Adverse Rights – any easement, covenant, right or other interest affecting the Property, the release, discharge or variation of which is reasonably required to assist the Works or the use and occupation of the Development; ] [ Adverse Rights Agreement – any document that gives legal effect to the release,...