UK Construction and Law

A lift maker cannot enforce a 416,499 pounds adjudication award while the contractor may show there was never a contract

By Staff Writer  |  23 October 2026

A specialist lift manufacturer won 416,499 pounds in adjudication against the main contractor on a Network Rail station scheme in Essex. The Technology and Construction Court has refused to enforce it, because the contractor has a real prospect of showing that no subcontract was ever made.

Serapid Limited, which makes lifts, applied for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's decision against Octavius Infrastructure Limited, which builds and maintains railways and roads. Mr Justice Moody dismissed the application on 22 October 2026 in Serapid Ltd v Octavius Infrastructure Ltd [2026] EWHC 2695 (TCC). The adjudicator's jurisdiction depended on a contract existing between the parties, and the judge found that Octavius had a real prospect of proving there was none.

Lifts for Chalkwell station

Octavius was main contractor to Network Rail Infrastructure Limited on an Access for All scheme at Chalkwell station, which involved demolishing the existing footbridge and building a new one with two lifts. The parties had signed a first stage design subcontract for the lifts in August 2024. In December 2024 Octavius invited tenders for supply and installation and attached a draft subcontract on NEC3 Engineering and Construction terms. Serapid quoted 872,175 pounds on 14 February 2025, on its own conditions.

Negotiation of the subcontract terms ran through May and June 2025, and by 16 June the remaining points, including an 18% fee and the wording of the liability cap at clause X18, had been settled, and Octavius's senior project manager wrote that he believed all issues had been resolved legally and commercially. Serapid began procurement and manufacture, although no subcontract was ever signed. In late October 2025 Serapid re-priced the Chalkwell works at 1,065,000 pounds, and on 7 November Octavius wrote that, following Network Rail's change of lift type, it would no longer require Serapid's services.

What the adjudicator decided

Serapid referred the dispute to adjudication and claimed 667,526 pounds. The adjudicator found that a contract on NEC3 terms had been agreed in or around 6 June 2025, accepted that Octavius had terminated it at will, and valued the sum due under clause 93 and the termination table at 416,499 pounds. He also ordered Octavius to pay his fees of 29,250 pounds, which were paid, but the award itself has not been paid.

Why the court would not enforce it

The judge applied the ordinary summary judgment test in CPR 24.3 alongside the settled rule that an adjudicator's decision is enforced even where it contains errors, unless the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction or seriously breached natural justice. Whether any contract existed went to jurisdiction itself.

He gave several reasons for holding that Octavius had a real prospect of success. Serapid's pleaded date of 6 June moved in argument to 13 June and then to 20 June, and it added an alternative case of a simple oral contract, so the moment of offer and acceptance was never fixed. The project manager's emails of 13 and 16 June contemplated a signed order. Serapid itself later wrote of finalising the contract, and its August execution strategy suggested that scope, price, programme and execution remained open, and Serapid also sought to reopen the price. The design subcontract had been formally executed, and the invitation to tender required execution as a deed.

The judge accepted Octavius's submission that the position was akin to British Steel Corp v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co: a request to proceed pending a formal contract. Five months of manufacture did not change that, because on Serapid's own case procurement began on 3 June, before any contract was said to exist, and in May the parties had discussed a letter of intent, or a purchase order with a cancellation clause, to cover early procurement.

For these reasons, I conclude that Octavius has a real prospect of establishing that there was no contract between the parties.

Mr Justice Moody, Technology and Construction Court

The oral contract alternative failed on its own terms, since it was not pleaded, was not the dispute referred to the adjudicator, and left offer, acceptance, price and scope unclear. The judge adopted the principle stated by Constable J in High Tech Construction Ltd v WLP Trading and Marketing [2026] EWHC 152 (TCC): where one party says there is no contract at all and that contention has a reasonable prospect of being right, summary judgment should not be given.

An adjudicator's award is only as secure as the contract that gives the adjudicator jurisdiction.

Serapid's claim is not lost, because whether a contract was made, and on what terms, can still be tried with the witnesses; the judge noted that what was said at meetings on 4 and 10 June and 24 August 2025 cannot be resolved on the documents alone. Until then, a subcontractor that manufactured on agreed but unsigned terms has no enforceable award and no quick route to the money.