Whiteways Contractors (Sussex) Ltd v Impresa Castelli Construction Ltd
Citation: [2000] EWHC Technology 67
Background Facts​
-
Whiteways was subcontracted under DOM/1 standard subcontract conditions (with adjudication clause 38A).
-
After an earlier adjudication and payment, Whiteways referred a second dispute in January 2000 relating to unpaid sums from its final account, prolongation costs, interest, financing charges, and interim applications 22 and 23.
-
The adjudicator (Mr. Murphy) decided Whiteways was owed £81,177.45 plus VAT (£95,383.50 total).
-
The defendant refused to pay, alleging the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction and wrongly dealt with issues not properly referred.
​Judgment
-
Court decision:
-
Summary judgment granted for Whiteways, enforcing the adjudicator’s decision in full.
-
​
-
Key findings:
-
The adjudicator had jurisdiction:
-
The court found that the Notice of Adjudication sufficiently identified the disputes, even though additional details were included in the Referral.
-
The parties had clearly invited the adjudicator to determine his own jurisdiction, and he decided that he had jurisdiction — this was binding until final determination.
-
No material breach of natural justice:
-
The adjudicator had fairly considered all jurisdictional objections and provided detailed reasons.
-
-
-
-
-
On abatement and set-off:
-
Defendant’s arguments about prior overpayments were rejected because under the HGCRA 1996, any such deductions must be properly notified in a compliant withholding notice.
-
​
-
Outcome:
-
Judgment for £95,383.50 plus agreed interest (£2,215.40), totaling £97,598.90.
-
Costs awarded to Whiteways.
-
General Principles Developed
-
Jurisdiction of adjudicator:
-
An adjudicator's jurisdiction is determined by the disputes identified in the Notice of Adjudication.
-
Once parties invite an adjudicator to decide jurisdiction (and he does), that decision is binding temporarily and cannot be reopened during enforcement.
-
​
-
Natural justice:
-
An adjudicator does not breach natural justice merely by expanding upon points included in the referral if they flow from the notice and both parties had an opportunity to respond.
-
​
-
Abatement and set-off under the HGCRA:
-
No distinction between set-off and abatement regarding notification obligations.
-
All deductions or abatement arguments require valid withholding notices in compliance with s.110 and s.111 of the HGCRA.
-
Without such notices, the paying party cannot later raise abatement or set-off to resist enforcement.
-
​
-
Finality and enforcement:
-
Courts will robustly enforce adjudication decisions to uphold "pay now, argue later" policy, unless clear jurisdictional or serious natural justice breaches exist.
-