Premier Modular Limited v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

Summary

A modular building contractor won an adjudication against an NHS trust worth over 1.65 million pounds and applied to enforce it. The trust resisted, saying the decision was reached in breach of natural justice.

The trust's main complaint was that the adjudicator found a compensation event on a contractual basis that neither party had argued, and made a finding that the accepted programme had been updated when both parties agreed it had not. The contractor said these were ordinary parts of the adjudicator's task.

Adrian Williamson KC refused enforcement. This was one of the rare cases of obvious unfairness. The adjudicator had decided the central question on a basis not put to the parties, so the trust had a real prospect of showing a material breach of natural justice, and the application was dismissed.

Background and facts

Premier Modular carried out works for Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust under a contract using the NEC compensation event machinery.

A dispute was referred to adjudication. The adjudicator issued a decision, later re-corrected, on 26 February 2026, awarding Premier Modular 1,655,385.49 pounds and other relief. Premier Modular applied to enforce it by summary judgment.

The trust resisted on three natural justice grounds: that the adjudicator's central finding of a compensation event rested on a contractual basis neither party had raised; that he failed to address the trust's defence that a condition precedent had not been met; and that he found the accepted programme had been updated, contrary to the agreed position of both parties that it had not.

The issue

The question was whether the adjudicator had breached natural justice by deciding the central issue on a basis that had not been argued, and whether any such breach was material enough to prevent enforcement.

The decision

Adrian Williamson KC refused to enforce the decision. He applied the settled principles in Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] BLR 250: a breach must be material, and a decision is vulnerable where the adjudicator goes off on a frolic of his own by deciding on a factual or legal basis argued by neither side. He kept in mind the guidance in Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd [2006] BLR 15 that the court interferes only in rare cases of obvious unfairness.

Taking the first and third grounds together, the judge found that the adjudicator had decided the compensation event on a contractual basis that had not been raised and on which neither party had made submissions. That went to the heart of the decision.

"the Trust does have a real prospect of succeeding on its contention that the Decision was arrived at in breach of the rules of natural justice."Adrian Williamson KC, paragraph 48

He recognised the difficulty adjudicators face in resolving substantial disputes in a short time, a point stressed in Carillion, but held that this was not an ordinary case:

"this is one of those rare cases where there has been obvious unfairness."Adrian Williamson KC, paragraph 49

Grounds one and three succeeded. The complaint that the adjudicator failed to address the notification defence did not, and the judge rejected the separate jurisdiction challenge, holding that everything decided was within the scope of the reference. The judge dismissed the application.

Practical implications

The usual rule is that adjudicators' decisions are enforced even if wrong on fact or law. Natural justice is a narrow exception, but this case shows it has teeth where the adjudicator decides the central issue on a basis neither party advanced.

The dividing line is the frolic. An adjudicator is entitled to reach a view the parties did not put forward on a point that was in play, and to use his own experience. He is not entitled to decide the case on a legal or factual basis that neither side argued, without giving them the chance to address it. Where that happens on a point that goes to the heart of the decision, the breach is material and enforcement can be refused.

For a party that senses the adjudicator is moving towards a new basis, the practical step is to ask for the chance to make submissions on it before the decision. If the adjudicator raises a fresh point, invite further submissions, and record the request. That protects the decision if you win and preserves the challenge if you lose.

For a party resisting enforcement, the challenge must clear a high bar. The breach must be material and more than peripheral, and the court will keep in mind the short timescales adjudicators work to. A complaint that the adjudicator simply reached the wrong answer, or preferred one argument to another, will not succeed.

Premier Modular Limited v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 1404 (TCC), Technology and Construction Court, Adrian Williamson KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court. Heard 19 May 2026, judgment handed down 10 June 2026.