Search

How can we help?

Icon

Adjudication decision cannot be used to resist prior adjudication

In M Davenport v Greer, one of the first cases to follow the court of Appeal’s decision in S&T v Grove, the TCC held that an employer could not use a “true value” adjudication decision as a defence or set off to enforcement proceedings for an earlier decision in favour of the contractor.

Background

M Davenport Builders (MDB) carried out building work for the Greers under a contract which contained no provisions for payment and so the payment terms of the Scheme for Construction Contracts were implied into the contract.  When MDB issued a final account for £106,160.84, the Greers did not pay but failed to issue a payment or pay less notice.

MDB commenced an adjudication for the unpaid sum (plus interest) and was successful.  The Greers did not pay the sum awarded to MDB and instead commenced a second adjudication (before a different adjudicator) as to the true value of the works.  The adjudicator decided in favour of the Greers that no money was payable to MDB.

MDB brought enforcement proceedings to the TCC in respect of the unpaid award in the first adjudication decision.  The Greers defended the proceedings on the basis that the decision in the second adjudication could be used as a set-off or counterclaim.

Decision

Stuart-Smith J held that the Greers could not rely on the decision in the second adjudication as a ground to avoid paying the sum awarded in the first adjudication.  He followed the reasoning of S&T v Grove  that the first “smash and grab” adjudication created an immediate obligation to make payment, which had to be done before commencing a second adjudication as to the value, and on that basis held that because the Greers had failed to discharge that obligation, they could not rely on the result of the second adjudication to resist enforcement of the first decision.

Although S&T v Grove related to interim applications, Stuart-Smith J found no significant reason to justify a difference in approach for a final application, on the basis that deprivation of cashflow could have serious effects for a contractor whether it occurred during or at the end of the works.

However, although the decision in S&T v Grove was clear that payment was required before a true value adjudication could be commenced, Stuart-Smith J did not determine any issue relating to the jurisdiction of the second adjudicator, on the basis that the question of jurisdiction for the second adjudication did not need to be determined given that he had held that the Greers could not rely on the decision in that adjudication.  Instead, citing Harding v Paice [2015] EWCA Civ 1231, he noted that in that case a party discharging its payment obligation from a first adjudication was not a prerequisite to that party commencing a second adjudication.

This element of the decision does not entirely follow S&T v Grove, which held that the payment obligation must be discharged before the second adjudication can be commenced.  Despite finding that there was no distinction between the interim and final payment contexts, by not applying Grove to the issue of jurisdiction of the second adjudication, Stuart-Smith J implicitly creates a distinction i.e. that Grove fetters the right to adjudicate in the case of interim payments, but not for final payments.

This is the first reported case to apply last year’s Court of Appeal decision in S&T v Grove. Critically, it confirms that S&T v Grove applies to true value adjudications after an initial “smash and grab” adjudication in the context of both interim and final payment applications.

Practical implications

This is the first reported case to apply last year’s Court of Appeal decision in S&T v Grove. Critically, it confirms that S&T v Grove applies to true value adjudications after an initial “smash and grab” adjudication in the context of both interim and final payment applications.

Whilst the principle makes sense, however, questions remain over whether it is commercially practical, particularly in light of the decision that the second adjudicator will not necessarily lack jurisdiction (which means that the second adjudication may be able to proceed, and be relied upon and enforced, but only once the payment awarded in the first adjudication has been made).  It is not obvious why an employer should be obliged to pay the sum from the first adjudication when they already have a further decision that that sum is not the true value and so is not due to be paid.  All that will happen in those circumstances is that the employer has to pay the sum awarded in the first adjudication and then commence enforcement proceedings to recover it on the basis of the second decision, instead of dealing with both decisions by means of set-off.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 15 September 2025
  • Immigration

Sharp rise in Sponsor Licence Revocations – What employers need to know

The Home Office has reported a record number of sponsor licence revocations over the past year, as part of its intensified efforts to crack down on abuse of the UK’s immigration system.

art
  • 10 September 2025
  • Commercial Real Estate

Trouble at the Table: The Challenges Facing the UK Hospitality Sector in the run up to Christmas 2025

The UK hospitality sector, long celebrated for its vibrancy and resilience, is facing a perfect storm of economic, operational, and structural challenges in 2025.

art
  • 09 September 2025
  • Commercial Real Estate

Le bail commercial anglais: quelques points essentiels à considérer

Typiquement, les baux commerciaux en Angleterre sont de court terme, d’une durée de 5 ou 10 ans, avec un loyer de marché et des ajustements du loyer périodiques en fonction de l’inflation ou d’autres facteurs. 

art
  • 09 September 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

The Failure to Prevent Fraud Offence – be prepared to avoid criminal liability

The failure to prevent fraud offence is a new corporate offence which has come into force on 1 September 2025.

art
  • 08 September 2025
  • Employment

Can employers still make changes to contracts after the Employment Rights Bill?

The short answer is yes but it will be much more difficult for employers following the introduction of the Employment Rights Bill because their ability to fairly dismiss employees who do not agree contractual changes is being restricted. 

art
  • 05 September 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

When Ignoring a DSAR Becomes a Criminal Offence

On 3 September 2025, Mr Jason Blake appeared at Beverley Magistrates Court and was fined for failing to respond to a data subject access request (DSAR).