High Tech Construction Limited v WLP Trading and Marketing Limited [2026] EWHC 152 (TCC)

SCCSI

(Providing Elite Certification Programmes to Construction Professionals Since 2009)

Explore Our Construction Claims and Contracts Certification Programmes

Presented by

Society of Construction Claims
Specialists International

sccsinternational.org

High Tech Construction Limited v WLP Trading and Marketing Limited

[2026] EWHC 152 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Technology and Construction Court

Before Mr Justice Constable | Heard 13 January 2026 | Handed down 30 January 2026

Interactive Process Flow | Foundational contract and jurisdiction

Case Analysis Process Flow

0 of 7 nodes explored

1. Case Overview

Case: High Tech Construction Limited v WLP Trading and Marketing Limited [2026] EWHC 152 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Technology and Construction Court
Judge: Mr Justice Constable
Hearing Date: 13 January 2026
Judgment Date: 30 January 2026
Case No: HT-2025-000378

High Tech Construction Limited (HTC) sought summary judgment enforcing an adjudicator's true-value decision for £2,142,623.35 plus interest. The works concerned a residential development at 162 Willesden Lane owned by WLP Trading and Marketing Limited. HTC said the works were governed by a JCT Design and Build Sub-Contract allegedly signed in January 2023. WLP said that document was created later for another purpose and that the actual arrangements were an enabling-works agreement followed by a smaller reinforced-concrete-frame contract. WLP resisted enforcement on jurisdiction and fraud grounds and alternatively sought payment into court. The court refused summary enforcement because WLP had a real prospect of proving that the foundational contract under which the adjudicator was appointed never existed (paragraphs 1-4 and 71-85).

Central Legal Test: Where the defendant has a real prospect of proving that the foundational construction contract invoked for the adjudicator's appointment did not exist, the issue is jurisdictional rather than a mere misdescription of contractual terms. The adjudicator cannot finally bind the parties on the existence of the source of his own jurisdiction (paragraphs 39-40 and 70-75).

Parties and Representation

Claimant: High Tech Construction Limited, represented by James Bowling, instructed by Fenwick Elliott LLP.

Defendant: WLP Trading and Marketing Limited, represented by David Pliener KC and Gaynor Chambers, instructed by Spencer West LLP.

Project and Competing Contract Cases

The project was a 22-flat residential development at 162 Willesden Lane, London (paragraphs 1 and 6). HTC relied on a January 2023 JCT DB/Sub/A 2016 agreement for works priced at £2,392,623.35. WLP said the operative arrangements instead comprised demolition and enabling works agreed through oral, WhatsApp and email communications, followed by an RC frame agreement for £1,250,000 (paragraphs 3 and 12-32).

Core Enforcement Dispute

WLP said the JCT document relied on in the adjudication was fabricated, altered or misrepresented and therefore could not provide jurisdiction. HTC answered that either side's contractual case concerned construction contracts subject to the Scheme, so the adjudicator would have had jurisdiction under either route (paragraphs 9-10 and 35-42).

2. Procedural History

Adjudication Chronology

11 September 2025: HTC served its Notice of Adjudication, identifying the January JCT Contract and applying to RICS for nomination (paragraphs 5-8).

16 October 2025: The adjudicator decided that HTC was entitled to £2,142,623.35 plus interest on a true-value basis (paragraphs 1-2). WLP participated under a reservation after its jurisdiction challenge was rejected (paragraphs 9-10).

Freezing and Enforcement Proceedings

In November 2025 HTC obtained a freezing order without notice. It was continued on the return date for reasons given in [2025] EWHC 3209 (TCC) (paragraph 4). HTC then sought summary judgment enforcing the adjudication award, and WLP served materially fuller documentary, metadata and signature evidence about contract formation (paragraphs 14-34).

Issues for Summary Judgment

The court considered whether the disagreement about the foundational contract affected jurisdiction, whether alleged fraud barred enforcement, and whether any enforced sum should be secured because of HTC's financial position. The stay or security issue was deferred and became irrelevant after enforcement was refused (paragraphs 2 and 76-85).

3. Defendant's Position

WLP maintained that the January JCT Contract was not the parties' agreement and that its use was fraudulent. It said the adjudicator was appointed under a contractual provision which did not exist and therefore lacked jurisdiction (paragraphs 3, 9-10 and 41-75).

Alternative Contractual Framework

WLP said HTC first performed enabling works under informal communications and later agreed to construct only the reinforced concrete frame for £1,250,000. Those scopes and sums were materially narrower than the alleged January JCT Contract (paragraphs 3 and 15-32).

Documents Said to Contradict the JCT Case

WLP relied on June 2023 meeting minutes stating that no JCT contract was available and that a lead contractor agreement remained to be concluded. It also relied on messages about arranging a JCT document, metadata concerning a contract adapted from a Romford project, signature evidence, later RC-frame tenders and invoices (paragraphs 17-32).

Jurisdiction and Fraud

WLP had told the adjudicator that the alleged JCT instrument was fabricated, altered or misrepresented and expressly reserved its jurisdiction objection. In court it argued that a decision based on that non-existent foundational contract could not be enforced and that reliance on the document amounted to fraud (paragraphs 9-10 and 71-82).

4. Claimant's Position

HTC said the January JCT Contract was signed at a meeting on 26 January 2023 and later circulated electronically. It argued that the dispute concerned contractual terms and scope, not the existence of adjudication jurisdiction, because the Scheme would apply whichever contractual account was correct (paragraphs 3, 12 and 35-75).

Signed JCT Contract

HTC's evidence was that Mr Osman and Dr Essa signed the JCT sub-contract at a hotel meeting on 26 January 2023, after which Dr Essa retained the original and sent a copy in June. HTC said later references to JCT arrangements were consistent with that contract already existing (paragraphs 12 and 18-31).

Jurisdiction Under Either Contractual Route

HTC argued that the express JCT provisions applied the Scheme, while the Scheme would also be implied into WLP's alleged oral and simple written construction contracts. RICS nomination was therefore said to be valid under either account, making the formation dispute a substantive issue rather than a jurisdictional bar (paragraphs 35-37, 41 and 51-75).

Fraud Was Already Available

HTC relied on the rule that fraud ordinarily cannot resist enforcement where it was or could have been raised and adjudicated. WLP had alleged fraud during the adjudication, and the adjudicator had rejected the case on the evidence then available (paragraphs 9-10 and 76-83).

5. Court's Analysis

The Evidence Required a Trial

The court did not determine which party's factual account was true. It found two mutually exclusive narratives and observed that the new documents gave WLP a real prospect of proving that the January JCT Contract did not exist and that reliance on it was dishonest (paragraphs 33-34).

Adjudicators May Investigate, But Not Finally Decide, Their Jurisdiction

An adjudicator should investigate a jurisdiction challenge, but the ruling is not binding unless the parties agreed that it would be. A defendant can resist enforcement by showing a respectable case that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction (paragraphs 38-40).

Misdescription Distinguished From Non-Existence

Errors about the date, wording or precise terms of an agreed foundational contract will usually be substantive matters for the adjudicator. The position differs where there is a real dispute about the very existence or essence of the contract said to confer jurisdiction. In that case, summary enforcement is ordinarily inappropriate (paragraphs 43-70).

This Was an Existential Contract Dispute

If WLP's case was correct, the JCT contract used for the appointment simply did not exist. The adjudication was a payment claim under that specific contract, and WLP had squarely preserved the point. The fact that the Scheme might also apply to different contracts did not cure the absence of the invoked foundational agreement (paragraphs 71-75).

Fraud and Security Did Not Require Decision

The fraud authorities distinguish later-discovered fraud from fraud raised or reasonably available in the adjudication. The court did not need to decide WLP's wider fraud argument because the jurisdiction ruling already disposed of enforcement. The proposed stay or payment-into-court issue was likewise not reached (paragraphs 76-85).

6. Decision and Outcome

Winner: The Defendant (WLP Trading and Marketing Limited) succeeded.

Result: HTC's application summarily to enforce the adjudicator's decision was refused. WLP had a real prospect of establishing at trial that the adjudicator was appointed under a foundational contract which did not exist (paragraphs 71-75 and 85). The Claimant (High Tech Construction Limited) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: HTC could not obtain immediate payment of the £2,142,623.35 award. The existence and authenticity of the alleged JCT agreement, and the parties' true contractual arrangements, remained for trial rather than being finally decided in this enforcement judgment.

Summary Enforcement Refused

The court refused HTC's summary judgment application (paragraph 85).

Reason for Refusal

WLP had preserved a jurisdiction challenge and produced a properly arguable case that the January JCT Contract, the sole foundation identified in the adjudication, never existed (paragraphs 34 and 71-75).

No Final Finding of Fraud or Contract Formation

The court did not decide which factual narrative was true and did not determine the separate fraud defence. It also did not address WLP's alternative request for payment into court (paragraphs 33-34 and 76-85).

7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points

A Foundational Construction Contract Is Required

Adjudication jurisdiction must derive from an appropriate construction contract. An appointment cannot be validated merely because another, materially different contract might also have permitted adjudication through a similar procedure (paragraphs 43-59 and 69-75).

Contract Misdescription Usually Does Not Defeat Jurisdiction

Where the parties agree that a foundational contract exists but dispute its precise terms, date, scope or subsequent variations, the adjudicator will generally have jurisdiction to determine those substantive issues. The court should reject tactical challenges based only on inaccurate characterisation (paragraphs 48-70).

Non-Existence Is Different

Where there is a real prospect that the contract invoked for appointment never existed, the adjudicator cannot temporarily bind a party on that foundational question. A preserved challenge of that kind may prevent summary enforcement (paragraphs 70-75).

Fraud at Enforcement

Fraud requires clear and unambiguous evidence. Fraud already raised or reasonably available during the adjudication will ordinarily not defeat enforcement after the adjudicator has addressed it; materially new fraud may stand differently. The court did not finally apply that rule here because jurisdiction was dispositive (paragraphs 76-83).

Practice Implications

For Claimants:
Before referring a dispute, identify the correct foundational contract and the appointment route with evidence capable of surviving a jurisdiction challenge. If the contractual history is disputed, do not assume that a similar Scheme procedure under an alternative contract cures the problem. Preserve original signed documents, transmission records and contemporaneous negotiations.

For Defendants:
Raise any non-existence or authenticity challenge during the adjudication and reserve jurisdiction clearly. At enforcement, distinguish a genuinely different foundational contract from a minor error in date or terminology. Produce the contract-formation evidence promptly, including messages, meeting records, metadata, signatures, scopes, prices and later conduct.

General Practice Points:
A true-value adjudication still depends on the contract from which the adjudicator's authority and valuation task arise. Parties should avoid creating retrospective contract documents for financing, record-keeping or other collateral purposes without clear wording about their legal status. Similar adjudication procedures do not make fundamentally different contracts interchangeable.

Legal Disclaimer

This interactive process flow is provided for educational and professional development purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content reflects interpretations and analyses that may not apply to specific circumstances. Contract interpretation depends on specific wording, jurisdiction, and factual context. Always consult qualified legal professionals before making decisions based on this content. SCCSI and its contributors accept no liability for reliance on this material.