Beck v Eros | mysite

Beck Interiors Ltd v Eros Ltd

Citation: [2024] EWHC 2084 (TCC)

Background Facts

Beck was engaged by Eros in 2020 as design and build fit-out contractor for a major luxury project: The Residence, Mandarin Oriental at Hanover Square, London. The contract was a JCT Design and Build 2016 form with amendments, value approx. £40.2 million, later paid up to £73 million.
Multiple disputes arose, resulting in various adjudications. Beck initiated two adjudications seeking extensions of time and a ruling on smoke extract system works. Eros then commenced four further adjudications claiming damages and sums totaling several million pounds.
Beck applied to the court for an injunction to stop Eros from pursuing the four ongoing adjudications and to restrain Eros from starting further adjudications without the court’s permission. Beck argued the multiple parallel adjudications were unreasonable, oppressive, and an abuse of process

The court refused Beck’s application.
The statutory right to adjudicate “at any time” (Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996) is strong and fundamental.
It is only in very rare and exceptional cases that the court will intervene to restrain adjudication.
There was no evidence that Eros’s conduct was unconscionable, oppressive, or unreasonable to a high degree that would justify intervention.
The adjudicators had managed timetables fairly, often agreeing to Beck’s requested extensions.
Beck’s arguments (including financial strain and parallel demands) were not sufficient grounds; the proper remedy is to raise any natural justice arguments at the enforcement stage if needed.

Strong protection of statutory adjudication rights:
The right to adjudicate “at any time” is a cornerstone of the Act and can only be restricted in rare, extreme circumstances.

High threshold for injunctions:
Courts will only restrain adjudication if it is both unreasonable and oppressive, and to a serious degree. Even multiple concurrent adjudications do not automatically meet this threshold.

Role of adjudicators in fairness:
Challenges to timetables and fairness should primarily be addressed by the adjudicators themselves; courts avoid policing procedural fairness at interim stages.

Availability of remedies at enforcement:
Allegations of breach of natural justice or procedural unfairness can be raised as defences if a party resists enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision later.

No broad “pre-clearance” orders:
An injunction requiring court permission before future adjudications (as sought by Beck) is an extraordinary remedy and inappropriate absent vexatious or abusive litigation conduct akin to “vexatious litigant” cases.