Hutton Construction Ltd v Wilson Propert

Hutton Construction Ltd v Wilson Properties (London) Ltd

Citation: [2017] EWHC 517 (TCC)

Background Facts

The dispute arose from the conversion of Danbury Palace in Chelmsford into apartments, under a JCT Standard Building Contract.
Hutton submitted Application for Payment No. 24 on 17 August 2016, for a substantial sum.
The key dispute was whether Wilson served a valid Pay Less Notice in response.
In adjudication, Hutton was awarded £491,944.73 after the adjudicator found that Wilson’s Pay Less Notice was invalid.
Hutton sought summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator’s award.
Wilson tried to resist enforcement by arguing, through a Part 8 claim, that its Pay Less Notice was in fact a valid interim certificate, and thus valid.

Court’s decision:
- The court granted summary judgment to Hutton, enforcing the adjudicator’s decision in full.

Key findings:
- The defendant’s arguments did not fall within the narrow exceptions to immediate enforcement.
- The challenge attempted to re-argue the issues already determined in adjudication, including detailed factual matters and contract interpretation.
- The defendant’s Part 8 claim was too broad and introduced new factual contentions, making it unsuitable for resolution at a summary enforcement hearing.
- The judge emphasised that the principles of adjudication aim for quick cash flow decisions and do not allow a defeated party to re-litigate substantive disputes at enforcement stage.

Outcome:
- Judgment entered for Hutton in the sum of £491,944.73 to be paid within 7 days.
- Wilson was allowed to pursue its Part 8 claim separately through proper court procedure but could not use it to resist immediate payment.

Strict enforcement of adjudication decisions:
- Adjudicator’s decisions will be enforced promptly unless there is a clear lack of jurisdiction or a breach of natural justice.
- The correctness of the adjudicator’s decision (even if arguably wrong) is irrelevant to enforcement.

Limited scope for challenges at enforcement:
- Defendants cannot resist payment merely by asserting the adjudicator was wrong; they must meet high thresholds for exceptions.
- Only narrow, self-contained points suitable for short, evidence-light hearings (e.g., pure legal interpretation clearly determinative) may be raised.

Separate route for substantive challenges:
- Parties wishing to challenge the correctness of a decision must do so in separate proceedings (e.g., via Part 8 claims), not as a defence to enforcement.
- The existence of a separate challenge does not justify withholding payment ordered by an adjudicator.

"Pay now, argue later" policy reaffirmed:
- Reinforces the cash flow-focused intent of the Construction Act 1996 and the “pay now, argue later” approach.

Indemnity costs warning:
- Abusive or improper attempts to resist enforcement may result in indemnity costs orders against the resisting party.