United Utilities Water Limited v Northstone (NI) Limited (trading as Farrans Construction) [2026] EWHC 1057 (TCC)

United Utilities, a water undertaker, engaged a Farrans and Roadbridge joint venture under an NEC3 Option C contract, later varied so that the prices reached 131.6 million pounds, for the West Cumbria water supply project. A dispute over the validity of a payment and payment reduction notice led United Utilities to adjudicate, and the adjudicator ordered Farrans to pay 3,269,328.05 pounds plus VAT. Farrans did not pay; United Utilities sought summary enforcement while Farrans issued a Part 8 claim contending the adjudicator had made an error of law.

Farrans argued the point was a straightforward question of construction of the contract and the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. HHJ Kelly disagreed. Interpreting the notices required evidence of how a reasonable recipient would have understood them against the factual background, including how the parties used the CEMAR system after the contract was amended, and that evidence was insufficient. The issues were not suitable for Part 8, so the adjudicator's decision stood and summary judgment was granted for 3,269,328.05 pounds plus VAT, interest and the adjudicator's fees.

The case is a reminder that the Part 8 route to resist adjudication enforcement is narrow. It works only where the point of law is self-contained and needs no substantial factual inquiry; a contract-interpretation argument that depends on the parties' background knowledge and conduct will not qualify, and the temporarily binding decision will be enforced.

HHJ Kelly summarised the position at paragraph 59: "these issues are not suitable for determination under Part 8".