High Tech Construction Limited v WLP Trading and Marketing Limited

Summary

A contractor sought summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's true value decision worth over 2.1 million pounds. The employer resisted on three grounds: that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the contract the contractor relied on was not the genuine agreement, that the decision was procured by fraud, and that any sum should be paid into court.

The contractor said the works were carried out under a JCT Design and Build Sub-Contract said to have been executed in January 2023. The employer said no such contract was ever agreed, described it as a sham, and put forward a different arrangement of oral and messaging-based deals for a much smaller scope.

Mr Justice Constable refused enforcement. There was a real prospect that the employer would establish at trial that the contract under which the adjudicator was appointed did not exist. Where an adjudicator's jurisdiction depends on a contract that is arguably not the true one, and the point was squarely raised before the adjudicator, the court will not enforce a decision built on it.

Background and facts

High Tech Construction carried out substructure and concrete frame works at a residential development at 162 Willesden Lane, London, owned by WLP Trading and Marketing. The works ran from early 2023 to July 2024.

High Tech referred a payment dispute to adjudication. The adjudicator, nominated by the RICS, determined on a true value basis that High Tech was entitled to 2,142,623.35 pounds plus interest, and High Tech applied to enforce that decision.

High Tech's case was that the works were governed by a JCT Design and Build Sub-Contract said to have been executed at a meeting on 26 January 2023 and circulated by email in June 2023, with a sub-contract sum of 2,392,623.35 pounds.

WLP disputed that any binding JCT contract was ever agreed and called it a sham. On enforcement it put forward, with more evidence than it had given the adjudicator, a different framework: oral and messaging-based arrangements for demolition and enabling works, and a separate lump sum of 1,250,000 pounds for the concrete frame only.

The issue

The central question was whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction. His appointment rested on the January JCT contract. If that contract did not exist, the foundation for the appointment fell away.

High Tech argued that the adjudicator would have had jurisdiction under either contractual account, because both would have carried the Scheme adjudication procedure, so contract formation did not affect jurisdiction. The court also had to consider fraud and a possible stay.

The decision

Mr Justice Constable refused summary enforcement.

The governing authority was Pegram Shopfitters Ltd v Tally Weijl (UK) Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 2082. There, May LJ identified two difficulties where a claimant adjudicates on one contractual basis when another is arguable: the competing contracts may carry different procedural routes to jurisdiction, and, separately, a claimant who proceeds on a foundational contract that is reasonably arguably wrong has not secured the identification of the contractual terms necessary to the adjudicator's task.

The judge held that Pegram remained binding. The repeal of the old writing requirement in the 1996 Act and the line of cases stressing that adjudicators' decisions must be enforced did not undermine it.

He distinguished Air Design (Kent) Ltd v Deerglen (Jersey) Ltd [2008] EWHC 3047 (TCC), where Akenhead J held that whether a single contract had been varied by later agreements was itself within the adjudicator's substantive jurisdiction. That is a case of substance and jurisdiction overlapping. Here the challenge went to whether the appointing contract existed at all.

On the facts, the non-existence of the January JCT contract had been squarely before the adjudicator, so WLP had not waived the point or advanced a new jurisdictional argument on enforcement. The judge reached the core of the reasoning:

"there can, in my judgment, be no question of the court concluding that his answer on that question should, even if wrong, nonetheless be temporarily binding on the defendant, who never agreed to confer jurisdiction upon him to decide that question."Mr Justice Constable, paragraph 72

He concluded on jurisdiction:

"there is a real prospect that WLP will at trial establish that the Adjudicator was appointed pursuant to a contract which did not exist."Mr Justice Constable, paragraph 75

On fraud, the judge held it unnecessary to decide, given his jurisdiction findings. He noted he remained bound by the adjudication fraud test approved in Speymill v Baskind [2010] BLR 257 and drawn from SG South v Kingshead Cirencester [2010] BLR 47, restated in PBS Energo v Bester Generacion [2020] BLR 355, and that Takhar v Gracefield Developments [2019] UKSC 13 did not displace it in the adjudication context. The stay issue was not reached.

Practical implications

This decision is a reminder that the usual rule, that adjudicators' decisions are enforced even if wrong on fact or law, has a limit at the foundation. If jurisdiction depends on a particular contract, and there is a real prospect that contract did not exist, the decision built on it will not be summarily enforced.

The lesson for a referring party is to secure the contractual basis before referring. Identify the contract, plead it clearly, and be ready to prove it. If the very existence of the appointing contract is genuinely in issue, an adjudication is a fragile route to a payment you can enforce.

The distinction that decides these cases is between two situations. Where the dispute is whether one accepted contract was varied, that is usually within the adjudicator's own remit and the decision stands. Where the dispute is whether the appointing contract exists at all, the court can review it, and a non-fanciful challenge with a real prospect of success defeats enforcement.

For a responding party, timing and consistency matter. A jurisdiction point on the non-existence of the contract can be kept for enforcement if it was put to the adjudicator. A wholly new jurisdictional argument, or a refusal to state any positive case on what was agreed, is treated less kindly and may not save you.

Fraud remains a narrow route. On this reasoning it must be a real defence to the claim, supported by clear evidence, and generally must not be something that was or could have been raised in the adjudication. It did not need deciding here because jurisdiction had already defeated enforcement.

High Tech Construction Limited v WLP Trading and Marketing Limited [2026] EWHC 152 (TCC), Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Constable. Heard 13 January 2026, judgment handed down 30 January 2026.