Specialists International
This Knowledge Check tests your understanding of the decision of the Technology and Construction Court in Premier Modular Limited v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 1404 (TCC). The court had to decide whether an adjudicator's decision could be enforced where its central finding rested on a contractual basis neither party had argued and which contradicted their common position. The judgment matters to anyone running or resisting adjudication enforcement, because it marks where an adjudicator's freedom of analysis ends and a denial of natural justice begins.
By a contract dated 3 August 2023 on the NEC4 Option A form, with the tendered total of the Prices at GBP 19,793,700.41, the Trust engaged Premier Modular to design and build a stand-alone barn theatre at the Maidstone Hospital site. A dispute arose over the late provision of a permanent mains water supply, said by the contractor to have been needed by 30 October 2023 but not made available until 20 February 2024. An adjudicator awarded the contractor GBP 1,655,385.49 by a re-corrected decision of 26 February 2026, and the contractor applied for summary enforcement. Adrian Williamson KC heard the application on 19 May 2026.
The judgment applies the natural justice principles in Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd and Roe Brickwork Limited v Wates Construction Limited, within the enforcement framework of Carillion Construction Limited v Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited. The court held that the adjudicator decided the central issue on a basis neither party had advanced, in breach of natural justice, and dismissed the enforcement application.
- The parties, the barn theatre project and the NEC4 Option A contract
- The permanent water supply dispute and the competing positions
- The Accepted Programme definition and the parties' common ground about it
- The compensation event and notification provisions in clauses 60.1, 61.3 and 63
- The three natural justice grounds raised against enforcement
- The Cantillon and Roe Brickwork principles on deciding unargued points
- The Carillion approach to enforcement and rare interference
- The adjudicator's clarification questions and the parties' answers
- Why grounds one and three succeeded and ground two failed
- The jurisdiction argument and the outcome of the application