Specialists International
This Knowledge Check tests your understanding of the decision of the Technology and Construction Court in United Utilities Water Limited v Northstone (NI) Limited (trading as Farrans Construction) [2026] EWHC 1057 (TCC). The court heard an adjudication enforcement claim together with a Part 8 claim attacking the payment notice on which the award rested. The judgment matters to practitioners because it shows the evidential limits of Part 8: a challenge that turns on how a reasonable recipient would have understood a notice cannot be decided without the factual setting.
By a contract dated 30 March 2017 in the NEC3 Engineering and Construction Contract form, Option C with bespoke amendments, United Utilities engaged a joint venture of Farrans and Roadbridge Limited to build 32 kilometres of cross-country aqueduct for raw water, plus 24 kilometres of water mains, for the West Cumbria Supply Project. The total of the Prices rose from GBP 85 million to GBP 95 million under a settlement agreement of 25 July 2018 and to GBP 131.6 million under a deed of variation of 30 September 2021, which also moved the contract to Option A with milestone payments. The dispute concerned payment notice PA-70, issued through the CEMAR platform on 11 October 2024, which assessed the amount due as minus GBP 3,269,328.05. An adjudicator ordered Farrans to pay that sum, and Her Honour Judge Kelly heard the enforcement and Part 8 claims together.
The judgment sets out sections 109 to 112 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, the notice-interpretation principles collected in Advance JV v Enisca Limited, the Project Manager's duty of impartiality in Costain Ltd v Bechtel Ltd, and Everwarm Ltd v BN Rendering Ltd on a contractor being payer or payee. The court held that the issues raised were unsuitable for Part 8 determination and granted summary judgment enforcing the award.
- The parties, the West Cumbria Supply Project and the NEC3 Option C contract
- The settlement agreement, the deed of variation and the move to milestone payments
- The Core Clause 50 and 51 machinery and the Option Y(UK)2 payment dates
- Payment applications AFP77 and AFP78 and payment notice PA-70
- The negative assessment of minus GBP 3,269,328.05 and the CEMAR due-date mismatch
- The two issues Farrans posed in its Part 8 claim
- The notice-interpretation principles from Advance JV v Enisca and the smash and grab authorities
- The Project Manager's independence and the payer and payee definitions
- Why the court held the issues unsuitable for Part 8 determination
- The summary judgment, interest and adjudicator's fees awarded