Premier Modular Limited v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 1404 (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

Premier Modular Limited v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

[2026] EWHC 1404 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, King's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court

Before Adrian Williamson KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court | Heard 19 May 2026 | Handed down 10 June 2026

Interactive Process Flow | Natural justice in adjudication

Case Analysis Process Flow

0 of 7 nodes explored

1. Case Overview

Case: Premier Modular Limited v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 1404 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, King's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court
Judge: Adrian Williamson KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
Hearing Date: 19 May 2026
Judgment Date: 10 June 2026
Case No: HT-2026-000085

Premier Modular Limited (PML) sought summary judgment enforcing an adjudicator's re-corrected decision dated 26 February 2026 for £1,655,385.49 and other relief. The dispute arose under an NEC4 Option A contract for a new barn theatre at Maidstone Hospital. PML alleged that late provision of a permanent water supply caused delay and a compensation event. The adjudicator found for PML under clause 60.1(3) by treating an unaccepted revised programme as the Accepted Programme, although both parties had agreed that only the original contract programme had been accepted. The NHS Trust resisted enforcement on natural justice grounds, and the court dismissed PML's application because the adjudicator decided the central issue on a case neither party had advanced or had a proper opportunity to address (paragraphs 1-3 and 33-51).

Central Legal Test: A breach of natural justice prevents enforcement only where it is material. An adjudicator must give the parties an opportunity to address a decisive factual or legal basis that neither side advanced and that has not been fairly canvassed (paragraphs 5-9).

Parties and Representation

Claimant: Premier Modular Limited, represented by Mathias Cheung, instructed by Fenwick Elliott LLP.

Defendant: Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, represented by Edmund Neuberger, instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP.

Contract and Project

The parties entered a contract dated 3 August 2023 for the design and construction of a two-storey barn theatre at Maidstone Hospital. The contract was based on NEC4 Option A, with a tendered total of the Prices of £19,793,700.41. The original completion date was 31 January 2024 and delay damages were £15,712 per week (paragraphs 11-12).

Core Water-Supply Dispute

PML said permanent mains water was required by 30 October 2023 for testing and commissioning but was not supplied until 20 February 2024. The Trust accepted responsibility for the supply but denied any obligation to provide it by a particular date. The original Accepted Programme contained no such date, although later unaccepted programmes did (paragraphs 13-14).

2. Procedural History

Pre-Adjudication Positions

8 October 2025: PML asserted that the late water supply and/or an instruction changing the Scope caused a compensation event and delay (paragraph 18).

11 November 2025: The Trust denied that a compensation event arose and said any claim under clauses 60.1(14) or 60.1(18) was time-barred under clause 61.3 (paragraph 19).

Adjudication Chronology

1 December 2025: PML served its Notice of Adjudication (paragraph 20).

8 December 2025: PML's Referral relied on clauses 60.1(1), 60.1(14) and 60.1(18), while accepting that the Appendix 3 programme was the only Accepted Programme (paragraphs 21-23).

26 February 2026: The adjudicator issued the re-corrected decision awarding PML £1,655,385.49 and other relief (paragraphs 1 and 28-33).

Clarification and Decision

On 22 January 2026 the adjudicator asked whether Contract Programme Rev2 dated 14 July 2023 was accepted. Both parties answered that it was not (paragraphs 26-27). The decision instead treated Contract Programme Rev3 dated 30 October 2023 as accepted and found a compensation event under clause 60.1(3), despite neither party having advanced that combination (paragraphs 30-33).

3. Defendant's Position

The Trust said the decision was reached through obvious procedural unfairness. Its principal case was that the adjudicator invented a clause 60.1(3) route founded on an Accepted Programme which both parties agreed did not exist (paragraphs 2 and 35-43).

Unargued Compensation Event

The parties had addressed compensation events under clauses 60.1(1), 60.1(14) and 60.1(18). The Trust argued that the adjudicator instead relied on clause 60.1(3) without notifying the parties that this different contractual route might decide the dispute (paragraphs 21, 24-25 and 35-39).

Contradictory Accepted Programme Finding

Both parties expressly told the adjudicator that no revised programme had been accepted. The Trust said it had no opportunity to address the later finding that Contract Programme Rev3 became accepted by default and supplied the contractual water-main date (paragraphs 14, 26-27 and 30-35).

Time-Bar Defence

The Trust also said the adjudicator failed to address its defence that PML had not notified the compensation event within eight weeks under clause 61.3. It maintained that this was a condition precedent to any adjustment of the Prices or Completion Date (paragraphs 16, 19, 24 and 45-46).

4. Claimant's Position

PML argued that the referred dispute and contractual materials were broad enough to permit the adjudicator's reasoning. It said the water-supply issue, clause 60.1(3) and programme status had been sufficiently canvassed, and that the adjudicator was not confined to choosing between the parties' submissions (paragraphs 37-41).

Broad Scope of the Referral

PML said the Notice asked whether late provision of permanent water created a compensation event and was not limited to particular sub-clauses. Because the full clause 60.1 list was before the adjudicator, he was said to be entitled to apply clause 60.1(3) (paragraph 38).

Clarification Was Said to Give Notice

PML relied on the adjudicator's question which reproduced clause 60.1(3) and asked about the status of Contract Programme Rev2. It argued that this exchange gave each party a reasonable opportunity to consider clause 60.1(3) and the Accepted Programme issue (paragraphs 26-27 and 38).

Programme Assessment Within Jurisdiction

PML said the dispute required the adjudicator to identify the correct programme for delay assessment. It argued that he could interpret the contract and the programme material, and could reach a conclusion which neither party had expressly proposed (paragraph 40).

5. Court's Analysis

The New Case Was Not Fairly Canvassed

The court distinguished the adjudicator's jurisdiction from the procedure he followed. The broad referral may have placed the contractual subject within jurisdiction, but it did not answer the natural justice complaint. If the adjudicator considered clause 60.1(3) decisive, he had to invite submissions on that route (paragraphs 38-39).

The Clarification Did Not Cure the Problem

The clarification referred to clause 60.1(3) but asked whether Contract Programme Rev2 was accepted. Both parties said it was not. It did not ask whether clause 60.1(3) applied through Contract Programme Rev3 or whether that later programme became accepted by default (paragraphs 26-27 and 39).

Material Breach of Natural Justice

The finding under clause 60.1(3) depended on treating Contract Programme Rev3 as accepted, directly contrary to the parties' common position. The conclusion created PML's entitlement and was central to the award. The court held that the adjudicator went off on a 'frolic' by making a case for PML which PML had not made (paragraphs 35-42).

Jurisdiction and Time-Bar Grounds Did Not Succeed

Everything decided fell within the broad scope of the referred dispute, so the jurisdiction complaint failed. The adjudicator had addressed the time-bar issue; any misunderstanding or error in that analysis was not a failure of natural justice and could not be reviewed during enforcement (paragraphs 43-46).

Rare Case of Obvious Unfairness

The court applied the strong policy favouring adjudication enforcement but held that this was one of the rare cases where the process was plainly unfair. The problem was not a point overlooked under time pressure, but the creation of a decisive case which the Trust had no opportunity to answer (paragraphs 47-51).

6. Decision and Outcome

Winner: The Defendant (Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust) succeeded.

Result: The court dismissed PML's summary judgment application. The Trust had a real prospect of establishing a material breach of natural justice because the adjudicator decided the central issue on an unargued basis, contrary to the parties' agreed position, without inviting submissions (paragraphs 42 and 47-51). The Claimant (Premier Modular Limited) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: PML could not enforce the £1,655,385.49 adjudication award through this application. The judgment does not decide the underlying water-supply entitlement on its merits.

Enforcement Refused

PML's application for summary judgment enforcing the adjudicator's decision was dismissed (paragraph 51).

Successful Ground

The successful objection was the material natural justice breach arising from reliance on clause 60.1(3) and Contract Programme Rev3 without fair notice to the parties (paragraphs 35-42 and 48-50).

Unsuccessful Grounds

The adjudicator had jurisdiction over the broad referred dispute. He also addressed the Trust's time-bar defence, even if his reasoning may have confused early-warning and compensation-event notification provisions (paragraphs 43-46).

7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points

Material Natural Justice Test

A procedural breach must be material rather than peripheral. It is material where the adjudicator fails to alert the parties to a decisive or materially important issue which they should have been allowed to address (paragraph 6).

Adjudicators May Reach Their Own Conclusions

An adjudicator need not accept one side's submissions in full and may decide on another basis where the material and issues have been fairly canvassed. If the proposed basis is new and decisive, the parties must first receive a fair opportunity to make submissions and, where appropriate, provide evidence (paragraphs 6-7 and 39).

Jurisdiction Is Distinct From Procedural Fairness

A point may fall within the scope of the referred dispute while still being decided unfairly. A broad notice of adjudication does not remove the adjudicator's duty to raise an unargued route that will determine the result (paragraphs 38-43).

Errors Are Normally Enforced

A court will not refuse enforcement merely because an adjudicator misunderstood a defence or made an error of law or fact. Intervention is reserved for plain jurisdictional defects or a material failure of procedural fairness (paragraphs 8-9 and 43-50).

Practice Implications

For Claimants:
A referring party should identify every contractual route on which it may rely and explain how each condition is satisfied. If an adjudicator raises a new route, seek clear directions and ensure the opposing party has an opportunity to respond. Do not assume that a broad notice will protect an award based on a decisive case never advanced.

For Defendants:
Record any common ground about programme status, contract clauses and factual assumptions. If the decision departs from that common ground without prior notice, identify precisely how the new reasoning affected the result. Separate genuine procedural unfairness from complaints that the adjudicator merely made a legal or factual error.

General Practice Points:
Adjudicators should state any new dispositive proposition before deciding it and allow proportionate submissions. A clarification question must identify the actual issue under consideration; a reference to one clause or programme will not necessarily provide fair notice of a different case. Parties should answer clarification requests directly and preserve the exchange for any enforcement proceedings.

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.