Enforcing adjudicators’ awards in Irish construction contracts
September 2025The Construction Contracts Act 2013 (the “CCA 2013”), which came into effect on 25 July 2016, marked a pivotal shift in how payment disputes in construction projects are resolved in Ireland. For the first time, parties to construction contracts were given a statutory right to refer payment disputes to adjudication, with a legally binding decision delivered in a matter of weeks.
The intent behind the legislation was clear: to ensure cash flow in the construction industry and create a fast, cost-effective dispute resolution mechanism that promotes financial certainty during the life of a project.
This article outlines the enforcement process of adjudicators’ decisions in Ireland, recent High Court judgments, and their implications for construction professionals navigating the adjudication regime.
Scope of the Construction Contracts Act 2013
The CCA 2013 applies to both oral and written construction contracts but carves out specific exemptions which include contracts valued at less than €10,000, Public Private Partnership (PPP) contracts; and residential contracts where the dwelling is under 200m² and one party occupies or intends to occupy it.
These limitations ensure that adjudication under the Act is focused on commercial construction disputes, where prompt resolution of payment claims is vital.
Adjudication and enforcement framework
The number of applications made for the appointment of an adjudicator under the Construction Contracts Act increased from 54 in 2019 to 101 in 2023, the highest to date. The combined total value of payment disputes to which adjudicators have been appointed in the last five years is €227.7 million, demonstrating the benefit of the legislation for Ireland’s construction sector.
If an adjudicator issues a monetary award and the losing party fails to pay within seven days, the successful party is entitled to bring an enforcement application before the High Court pursuant to Order 56B of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
High Court enforcement procedure: Order 56B process
An application to enforce is made by way of Notice of Motion and Affidavit evidence. Currently, the list is led by Mr Justice Simons of the High Court. And the application process is as follows:
- Notice of Motion application is issued pursuant to Order 56B of the Rules of the Superior Costs and is grounded upon affidavit evidence which is sworn by a Director of the applicant company who is familiar with the underlying Adjudication.
- No Appearance by or not substantively opposed by Respondent: If unopposed or not substantially opposed by Respondent, the Court will promptly proceed to set a hearing date and, thereafter, the proceedings will continue in a manner not dissimilar to a summary judgment application where the Court acts as the legitimate contradictor in respect of the application, proofs and final orders.
- Substantively Opposed by Respondent: If the application is opposed by the Responding Party, the application proceeds pursuant to very tight timelines (with further exchanges of Affidavits and written submissions) concluding in a half day or a full day hearing.
Case Law | Recent High Court judgments in relation to adjudication and the enforcement of adjudicators decision pursuant to the Construction Contracts Act 2013
K&J Townmore Construction Limited -v- Damien Keogh and Deslend (Mechanical) Limited T/A COBEC Engineering Group [2023] IEHC 509
In a significant High Court decision reaffirming the purpose and procedure of statutory adjudication in Ireland, Beale & Co acted for Deslend (Mechanical) Limited t/a COBEC Engineering Group in successfully opposing a jurisdictional challenge brought by the contractor K&J Townmore Construction Limited. The case underscores the courts’ commitment to preserving the speed and integrity of adjudication under the CCA 2013.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether it was appropriate for a party to challenge an adjudicator’s jurisdiction by way of judicial review prior to the conclusion of the adjudication, or whether such challenges should be raised, if necessary, during subsequent enforcement proceedings. The High Court refused to grant leave for judicial review and ruled that it was not the correct procedural vehicle at this stage. It held that the CCA 2013 provided a complete mechanism for challenging an adjudicator’s jurisdiction post-decision, through enforcement proceedings under Section 6(11) of the Act and Order 56B of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
This decision provides critical reassurance to industry professionals and adjudicators alike. It confirms that jurisdictional challenges should not derail adjudications mid-process and that the courts will not allow adjudication to be undermined by premature legal challenges.
Tenderbids v Electrical Waste Management Ltd [2025] IEHC 139
This landmark 2025 decision marked the first refusal by the Irish High Court to enforce an adjudicator’s decision under the CCA 2013. The Applicant served the Notice of Intention to Refer by email instead of registered post, as required under the contract.
In refusing to enforce the adjudicator’s decision, Mr Justice Simons placed considerable emphasis on the parties’ agreement on the means of delivery of contractual notices. He held that the language in Section 10 of the CCA 2013 was clear and that it protected the parties’ entitlement to determine the method by which notices would be delivered, which in this case was through registered post, with the exception of payment claims. Mr Justice Simons held that:
“The gateway to the statutory scheme is the service of a notice of intention to refer. There is nothing in the Act which authorises the court to dispense with the prescribed method of service agreed by the parties.”
The court found the adjudication process to be a nullity, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with contractual notice provisions.
Connaughton v Timber Frame Projects Ltd t/a Timber Frame Ireland [2025] IEHC 469
This decision is only the second time the Irish High Court refused an application to enforce an adjudicator’s decision under the CCA 2013. The Contractor resisted on three main grounds and was successful on the first of them.
Crucially, the Court noted the parties did not use a standard form construction contract, and their contract did not contain any provisions regarding payment on termination in the relevant circumstances. Mr Justice Simons held that:
“(T)he right to refer a dispute to statutory adjudication is confined to circumstances where the dispute relates to a payment which is provided for under a construction contract. The right to refer does not extend to a dispute in relation to a claim for common law damages for breach of contract.”
This decision helpfully clarifies the relatively narrow definition of disputes which may be referred to statutory Adjudication, i.e. disputes regarding payments provided for under a construction contract. This element is a prerequisite to a valid referral to statutory adjudication.
Costs consideration in enforcement applications
Costs vary depending on the complexity of the dispute, whether the Respondent appears or opposes and the urgency of the application. Where proceedings are straightforward, costs may be modest. However, if the application is opposed, expect tight timelines and costs reflective of a half-day or full-day hearing.
Robust mechanism for payment disputes
The Irish High Court has broadly adopted a pro-enforcement stance, affirming the intention behind the Construction Contracts Act 2013, to promote cash flow, minimise delay, and ensure swift resolution of payment disputes. However, the Tenderbids and Timber Frame cases signal that procedural rigour is paramount, and parties must comply strictly with contractual provisions to ensure their adjudication process is valid and enforceable.
In practice, adjudication is proving to be a robust and effective mechanism for payment disputes in Ireland, and the courts are determined to protect its integrity. But the message is clear: the speed of the process must not come at the cost of procedural compliance.
If you’re facing a payment dispute or need guidance on enforcing or resisting an adjudicator’s award, Killian Dorney and Michelle Keogh are ready to support you with expert legal insight and practical solutions.
Download PDF
