Will the courts enforce an adjudicator's decision?
The courts ordinarily enforce an adjudicator's decision promptly, even where the losing party contends that the adjudicator made an error. The decision remains binding unless and until the dispute is finally determined by agreement, litigation or arbitration.
Yes. Compliance is the rule, and resistance is confined to established grounds such as jurisdiction or material procedural unfairness
A party ordered to pay should comply with the adjudicator's decision. The successful party may seek summary judgment in the Technology and Construction Court. The court does not rehear the merits at enforcement. A genuine jurisdictional objection, a material breach of natural justice, severability, insolvency set-off or a properly supported stay application may affect the order or its execution, but disagreement with the adjudicator's reasoning is not enough. Any challenge should be identified and reserved during the adjudication, then supported by precise evidence.
| Issue | Position |
|---|---|
| Ordinary position | Decision enforced promptly |
| Merits error alleged | Not ordinarily a defence |
| Jurisdiction | May resist if properly established |
| Natural justice | Must be material |
| Final determination | Decision remains binding in the meantime |
The statutory design
Construction adjudication provides an interim binding decision capable of rapid enforcement. The underlying dispute can later be finally determined, but the adjudicator's decision governs the parties in the meantime.
Macob
The first enforcement decision rejected a merits and natural justice challenge and declared binding the adjudicator's payment decision. Refusal would have undermined the statutory process.
Outwing Construction
The court required compliance with the adjudicator's decision and awarded the successful claimant its enforcement costs after late payment.
Rentokil Ailsa
The Scottish court would not permit an arrestment mechanism to neutralise the payment required by the adjudicator's decision.
Bresco
The Supreme Court confirmed the statutory and contractual right to adjudicate despite insolvency set-off. It recognised adjudication as dispute resolution in its own right, while noting that insolvency may affect summary enforcement.
What enforcement is not
The enforcement court does not decide whether the adjudicator reached the correct contractual answer. An error made within jurisdiction ordinarily remains binding until final resolution.
The losing party may preserve its substantive case for final determination, but cannot ordinarily withhold compliance merely because it intends to litigate or arbitrate.
Potential resistance grounds
| Ground | Required focus |
|---|---|
| No jurisdiction | No qualifying contract, dispute or valid reference, subject to waiver and reservation. |
| Excess of jurisdiction | Decision addresses a matter not referred. |
| Natural justice | Material unfairness affecting the decision. |
| Severability | Whether an invalid part can be removed while enforcing the rest. |
| Insolvency | May affect enforcement, set-off or security rather than jurisdiction to adjudicate. |
| Stay of execution | Requires evidence satisfying the applicable enforcement principles. |
Reservation of rights
Raise a jurisdictional objection promptly, identify its basis and maintain it consistently. Participating without an effective reservation may impair the later objection. A general statement that all rights are reserved may not address the specific point.
Natural justice threshold
Procedural imperfection is insufficient. Identify the opportunity denied, the issue affected and why the breach was material to the decision. The adjudicator is entitled to adopt a fair, proportionate procedure within the statutory timetable.
Enforcement evidence
Prepare the contract, notice of adjudication, appointment, referral, decision, proof of service, payment demand, reservations and core procedural correspondence. Keep the enforcement claim confined to the decision and genuine resistance issues.
Enforcement sequence
Serve the decision and calculate the payment deadline.
Demand compliance and identify interest and fees.
Review jurisdiction and natural-justice reservations.
Separate merits complaints from enforceability issues.
Issue the correct summary enforcement proceedings promptly.
Prepare evidence on any stay, insolvency or security issue.
Seek judgment, interest and costs.
Preserve the final determination route separately.
Authorities
| Authority | Year or citation | What it decides |
|---|---|---|
| Macob Civil Engineering Ltd v Morrison Construction | [1999] 64 ConLR 1 | The decision was declared binding despite alleged merits and procedural errors. |
| Outwing Construction Ltd v H Randell | [1999] BLR 156 | There were consequences for compliance and for the costs of enforcement. |
| Rentokil Ailsa Environmental Ltd v Eastend Civil Engineering Ltd | 1999 | A mechanism used to negate the decision in Scotland was rejected. |
| Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd | [2020] UKSC 25 | Adjudication remains available in insolvency; enforcement consequences require separate treatment. |