Background Facts

• LAPP was engaged by Formations to carry out extensive refurbishment works at commercial premises in London.

• LAPP issued an interim payment application for £120,000 on 14 April 2023. Formations did not issue a valid Payment Notice or Pay Less Notice, so LAPP claimed the amount as a "notified sum."

• LAPP initiated adjudication in November 2024 and won. The adjudicator ordered Formations to pay £120,000 plus interest and adjudicator fees.

• Formations refused to pay, challenging the adjudicator’s decision on two grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction (arguing there were multiple separate contracts, not one contract), and (2) breach of natural justice.

​Judgment

• Summary Judgment Application:
  LAPP sought summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.

​

• Jurisdiction challenge:

  • Formations argued that there were multiple distinct contracts (based on different quotations and phases), meaning the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to consider a "single" dispute.

  • The court rejected this argument, finding there was in substance one evolving contract, expanded by successive quotations under a single overarching project.

​

• Natural justice challenge:

  • Formations claimed the adjudicator went on a "frolic of her own" and failed to consider certain defences.

​

• The court held:

  • The adjudicator did not stray outside the parties' arguments. Her observations on "course of dealing" were drawn from materials submitted by Formations and were not decisive.

  • The adjudicator did address the defences raised, including the arguments that the application did not comply with the Scheme and that it was "withdrawn" by a subsequent invoice. The court found these points were properly considered and rejected.

​

• Outcome:
  The court granted summary judgment in favour of LAPP for the adjudicator’s award, plus interest and adjudicator fees. Formations' defences were all rejected.

General Principles Developed

• Enforcement of adjudication decisions:
  Courts reaffirm that adjudicators' decisions will be enforced robustly and challenges on jurisdiction or natural justice will only succeed in rare, clear cases.

​

• Single contract vs. multiple contracts:
  Where works are carried out under a series of quotations and approvals in an ongoing project, courts will likely treat it as a single evolving contract unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

​

• Jurisdictional overlap with merits:
  If an adjudicator has jurisdiction to decide a substantive dispute, they can also determine whether variations or stages are part of that contract — such decisions are final for enforcement purposes even if arguably incorrect.

​

• Natural justice threshold:

  • Allegations of "frolic" or failure to consider defences require proof of a deliberate and material failure that goes to the heart of the decision.

  • Minor or inadvertent omissions generally do not undermine enforceability.

​

• Practical commercial approach:
  Courts discourage parties from "scrabbling around" for technical defences to resist payment (Carillion principle). Cash flow and finality remain primary policy goals of adjudication.

Get in touch.