Case No. HT-2025-000039 , HT-2-25-000040 - [2025] EWHC 2005 (TCC)

RBH served a Notice of Adjudication on 6 December 2024 and its Referral on 11 December. Since there was no written contract, the statutory Scheme for Construction Contracts applied, subject to the point about residential occupation to which I will come. Mr Robert Shawyer was appointed as the adjudicator. The adjudication was advanced on the basis that the sum claimed in the payment application was due because there was no valid payless notice. It was, therefore, what is sometimes called a “smash and grab” adjudication. I note that Mr and Mrs James complain that the Referral was made in the run-up to the Christmas period.

Mr and Mrs James took a preliminary objection to the adjudicator’s jurisdiction on the basis that they were residential occupiers because they said that, at the time of the contract, they intended to occupy the property upon completion. They said they subsequently changed their minds and decided to rent it out, and then later still, they decided to sell it. RBH argued that the Jameses were property developers, that they had never occupied it and never intended to occupy it. The adjudicator rejected the James’ jurisdictional objection and made a non-binding decision that he had jurisdiction. What appears to have been decisive in the adjudicator’s mind on the question of jurisdiction was first that the planning application for the new home included a ticked box for “market housing”, and second the submission of a purported payless notice which was taken as an admission by the Jameses that the Statutory Scheme applied.

Mr and Mrs James also argued that the Notice of Adjudication was defective. This argument was rejected by the adjudicator, and it has not been relied upon before me. Mr and Mrs James further argued that the payless notice was valid. The adjudicator rejected this argument, but it is now raised before me in the context of Mr and Mrs James’ Part 8 proceedings.

By his decision dated 17 January 2025, the adjudicator decided that RBH was entitled to be paid the sum of £663,016.16, together with interest on this sum and that such sums should be paid forthwith and, in any event, within five days. He further decided that Mr and Mrs James were responsible for his fees and expenses in the sum of £9,638 plus VAT. Mr and Mrs James have not paid any sums in relation to this decision, and accordingly RBH brings this application for summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.