HT-2025-000089 - [2025] EWHC 1815 (TCC)

I can take this shortly. POL sought to argue that the Decision should not be enforced for a variety of other reasons, not all of which were easy to follow. In my view this is a classic case of a losing party seeking to ‘ comb through the adjudicator's reasons and identify points upon which to present a challenge under the labels “excess of jurisdiction” or “breach of natural justice”’, a practice deprecated as long ago as 2005 by the Court of Appeal: see Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard [2005] EWCA 1358, (2005) 104 ConLR 1, [2006] BLR 15) at para 86.

This adjudicator acted perfectly fairly. There was no breach of natural justice. He gave each party ample opportunity to address him on the Notified Sum point, and they did so, at length.

Nor was there any excess of jurisdiction. The Adjudicator was quite entitled to consider the Notified Sum defence, and he did so. The only possible jurisdictional argument was as to the order for payment, the point which I have dealt with above.

For these reasons, I have concluded that the Decision should be enforced.

Counsel should please seek to agree any consequential matters, failing which the same can be dealt with on the basis of brief written submissions.