TCC Reaffirms Limited Grounds for Resisting Adjudication Enforcement
September 2026The decision in Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership LLP v Avison Young (UK) Limited [2026] EWHC 2319 (TCC) stresses the Court’s continued robust approach to enforcing adjudicators’ decisions. The Court upheld an award of £8.73 million in damages plus interest against a project manager arising from allegations of negligent over-certification of payments on a major construction development. The judgment serves as a reminder that the TCC will rarely refuse enforcement absent a clear jurisdictional error or material breach of natural justice.
Background
Between January 2020 and January 2023, Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership LLP (the Claimant) engaged Avison Young (UK) Limited (the Defendant) to act as NEC Project Manager and Supervisor for development works at Gateway South, Coventry. The works were undertaken by Buckingham and involved the excavation, treatment and repositioning of approximately 5 million m³ of material. The construction contract was based on an amended NEC3 ECC Option A (based on the descriptions in the judgment).
The Claimant alleged that the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and skill when assessing Buckingham’s applications for payment. In particular, it was alleged that the Defendant relied excessively on information provided by Buckingham, failed properly to reconcile conflicting data and overlooked several defects.
According to the Claimant, these failures resulted in substantial over-assessment of the Price for Work Done to Date (PWDD) of interim payments and consequent overpayment to Buckingham. Following Buckingham’s insolvency, the Claimant was unable to recover the alleged overpaid sums.
Adjudication
The dispute was referred to adjudication as a professional negligence claim. The Claimant argued that the Defendant’s negligent valuation and certification of interim applications had caused it to suffer significant financial loss.
The Adjudicator agreed and awarded the Claimant £8.73 million plus interest. He concluded that the Defendant had overvalued payments due to Buckingham and had failed to perform its duties with the required standard of reasonable skill and care. In assessing the award the Adjudicator used agreed figures between the experts but where not agreed he had carried out an assessment based on an independent report included as evidence in the adjudication.
The Defendant declined to pay the award, prompting the Claimant to seek summary judgment to enforce the decision.
Issues before the Court
The Defendant resisted enforcement on four grounds:
- Excess of jurisdiction;
- Failure to give adequate reasons;
- Breach of natural justice; and
- Severance
Excess of jurisdiction
The Defendant argued that the Adjudicator had not determined the professional negligence dispute referred to him. Instead, it contended that the Adjudicator had undertaken his own valuation exercise and substituted his assessment for that of the parties.
The Court rejected this argument. It held the Adjudicator had determined the dispute that had been referred, namely whether the Defendant had breached its contractual duties and what loss flowed from that breach. The consideration of certain defence points raised by the Defendant and the valuation exercise formed part of that assessment rather than constituting a separate disputes.
This reinforced the distinction between an Adjudicator asking the right question but getting the answer wrong and answering the wrong question; the former will generally not, by itself, be enough as a basis for resisting enforcement.
In the Court’s analysis, relying on principles established in Global Switch Estates Ltd v Sudlows[1] and Exyte Hargreaves Ltd v NG Bailey Ltd[2], the Adjudicator had identified and dealt with the dispute referred by the substance of the Decision. The Court will not consider the form of the Decision – it is for the Adjudicator to answer the questions as they see fit.
Failure to give adequate reasons
The Defendant also argued that the Adjudicator had failed adequately to explain how he reached certain conclusions.
The Court emphasised that Adjudicators are not required to produce judgments of judicial standard. The question is whether the reasoning allows the parties to understand what has been decided and why.
Here, the Court noted that the Defendant had been able to identify and challenge specific aspects of the Adjudicator’s reasoning, demonstrating that it understood both the conclusions reached and the basis upon which they had been reached.
Further, when considering such challenges it is important to consider the Decision as a whole rather than cherry-pick individual paragraphs or sentences out of context.
Breach of natural justice
The Defendant contended that the Adjudicator’s reliance upon an independent post-termination valuation gave rise to procedural unfairness. It argued that the Adjudicator had elevated the significance of this evidence of his own accord, rather than confining his assessment to evidence that formed a substantive part of either party’s case.
The Court rejected this submission. The Adjudicator had identified the relevance of the assessment, invited submissions and gave both parties the opportunity to address this evidence. The Court reinforced that Adjudicators are not confined to matters expressly advanced by the parties and may attach significance to evidence provided the parties are given a fair opportunity to address it.
Severance
The Defendant argued that certain findings relating to retention and defects should be severed from the remainder of the decision.
The Court refused severance, holding that these findings formed part of the Adjudicator’s overall assessment of loss and were not separate and self-contained determinations. Moreover, they had been reached after considering the parties’ submissions and did not involve any breach of natural justice.
The decision confirms that severance will only be available in limited circumstances.
Conclusion
This case demonstrates the difficulty of resisting enforcement of an Adjudicator’s decision. A party seeking to resist enforcement must establish more than alleged error of fact, law or approach. Successful challenges generally require evidence that the Adjudicator exceeded the scope of the dispute referred or acted in breach of natural justice when considering the dispute and the Decision as a whole.
A Referring Party can mitigate against such challenges at the outset by clearly daintifying the issues in dispute and noting any development and/or sub-issues raised by the parties in subsequent submissions.
The judgment also highlights the importance of raising procedural concerns during the adjudication itself and responding fully to opportunities offered by the Adjudicator to make submissions on material issues. It confirms that Adjudicators may reach conclusions that do not wholly reflect either party’s case, provided that the parties have been given a fair opportunity to address the matters relied upon and are able to understand the reasons for the decision.
More broadly, the case serves as a reminder of the significant exposure faced by project managers and other construction professionals involved in valuing and certifying payments. Where negligent certification results in irrecoverable overpayments to a contractor, substantial damages may follow and such damages can be pursued via adjudication. This was a significant claim (the Referral sought £15m plus interest) and involved at least 5 submissions and email submissions over a 6 month period and would have required substantial resources to pursue and defend.
The decision therefore provides useful guidance both on the TCC’s robust approach to enforcement and on the limited circumstances in which enforcement may be resisted.
Beale & Co has extensive experience in pursuing and defending adjudication claims including enforcement. If you require assistance with your project or dispute, please contact James Vernon.
[1] [2020] EWHC 3314 (TCC)
[2] [2023] EWHC 94 (TCC)
Download PDF
