Background Facts​

• A subcontract between Surgo and Roundel Manufacturing (R) dated 2019 for supply and installation of kitchens. R’s rights under the contract were later assigned to Bellway.

• R submitted a payment application on 22 December 2022 for £152,225.23 (including VAT).

• Surgo did not issue a valid payment notice or pay less notice, and did not pay.

• Bellway, as assignee, referred the matter to adjudication. It argued:

  • Primary: R was entitled to the sum as a “notified sum” (a “smash & grab” claim).

  • Alternatively: R was entitled to payment based on a “true value” assessment of the work.

• The adjudicator’s found that R’s application did not constitute a valid payment application for “smash & grab”, however, awarded £148,431.70 (plus interest and VAT) on a “true value” basis.

• Bellway sought to enforce the adjudication award by summary judgment. Surgo resisted on jurisdictional grounds.

​Judgment

• Key issues:
  1️⃣ Whether the adjudicator determined more than one dispute without jurisdiction.
  2️⃣ Whether the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by assessing true value after rejecting the smash & grab route.

​

• Decision on “one dispute” argument:

  • The court held there was a single dispute: what sum was due on the December 2022 application, advanced via two alternative bases (smash & grab and true value).

  • The judge emphasized a broad, common-sense approach, seeing these as alternative routes to resolving one claim rather than two independent disputes.

​

• Decision on “excess of jurisdiction” argument:

  • The adjudicator did not exceed jurisdiction by moving from the smash & grab argument to a true value assessment once the former failed.

  • The notice of adjudication clearly requested both routes as alternatives, giving the adjudicator jurisdiction to decide the true value.

​

• Outcome:

  • Both jurisdictional challenges by Surgo were rejected.

  • Summary judgment granted enforcing the adjudicator’s decision.