Belong (Construction) Limited v Seddon Construction Limited [2026] EWHC 1275 (TCC)

Belong was dissatisfied with an adjudicator's determination, dated 2 May 2024, on the meaning of the extension-of-time provisions in its contract with Seddon, in particular the treatment of the Air-Sealing Works. It brought a Part 8 claim seeking declarations that the contract administrator's decision refusing an extension of time was correct and that the adjudicator's contrary interpretation was wrong.

The dispute centred on the phrase error, omission, negligence or default in the extension-of-time clauses. The adjudicator had read those words as confined to a breach of a specific contractual obligation. HHJ Stephen Davies held that this was too narrow: the clauses did not say breach of the terms of this Contract, and the wider words could not be cut down in that way, though they still had to relate to the legal obligations Seddon had undertaken. Belong succeeded, and was entitled to declarations reopening the final certificate and confirming the extension of time should not have been granted.

The case shows the value of a Part 8 claim to correct an adjudicator's error of construction on a short point of contract interpretation, and warns against reading general words in an extension-of-time clause as if they were limited to a defined breach.

HHJ Stephen Davies held at paragraph 56 that on this question "the adjudicator applied too narrow an interpretation".