Background
Construction Muzzy Ltd (“Muzzy”) pursued summary judgment to enforce two adjudication decisions awarding unpaid sums under separate sub-contracts for groundworks and drainage works at a site in Epping, Essex. The adjudicator awarded Muzzy:
- £98,533.44 for groundworks
- £102,66.45 for drainage
Davis Construction (South East) Ltd ("Davis") however, resisted enforcement on three grounds:
- Breach of natural justice - The adjudicator was accused to have relied on an unsolicited surrejoinder submitted by Muzzy.
- Jurisdictional Overlap - The second adjudication was argued to be too similar to the first, resulting in the resignation of the adjudicator.
- Predetermination - The adjudicator was argued to have failed to conduct the second adjudication independently.
The Court’s analysis
- Natural justice and the surrejoinder
Responding to Davis’s arguments, the TCC found that the surrejoinder was proportionate. Whilst the submission was procedurally uncommon, the adjudicator’s reliance on it was not resolute. Critically, the court held that the adjudicator had not violated natural justice. The ruling was a potent reminder that the concept of procedural fairness is determined in context, rather than isolation.
- Jurisdiction and similar disputes
The TCC disagreed that the second adjudication was a repeat of the first. Applying Sudlows Ltd v Global Switch Estates 1 Ltd, the TCC held that the dispute came from separate sub-contracts and did not have any overlap regarding factual findings. The adjudicator was not ordered to resign, and the jurisdiction was properly cemented.
- Alleged predetermination
The TCC found no evidence that the adjudicator had approached the second dispute with a preconceived opinion. Despite Davis’s refusal to participate in the second adjudication, the adjudicator was found to have conducted a fresh review of the evidence and therefore had reached reasoned decisions, preserving the fairness of the process.
Decision
The TCC granted summary judgment enforcing both adjudication decisions, finding that:
- The adjudicator had acted within their jurisdiction;
- The process was conducted fairly with reasoned analysis; and
- The objections raised by Davis had no realistic prospect of success.
The TCC judgment reaffirmed the principle that, even if procedurally imperfect, adjudication decisions will be enforced unless there is a clear and material breach of natural justice or jurisdiction.
Key takeaways: What does this all mean?
- Adjudication should be fast and final (for now)
The case is a textbook illustration of the “pay now, argue later” approach. The court reaffirmed that adjudication decisions will be promptly enforced unless there is a serious procedural flaw. Parties are expected to comply first and litigate later.
- Jurisdictional challenges must be substantive
Two disputes are not the same just because they share superficial similarities. The court will assess whether the disputes are genuinely distinct. In this case, the existence of separate sub-contracts bolstered the conclusion that the disputes were separate.
- Fairness is contextual, not absolute
The court adopted a pragmatic view to the surrejoinder. Whilst the procedure may have not been executed flawlessly, it did not undermine the fairness of the adjudication. This highlights that adjudication allows for a degree of flexibility, especially when parties raise new arguments late in the process.
- Opting out is risky
Davis’s decision not to participate in the second adjudication did not shield them from enforcement. The court made it clear that non-participation does not invalidate the process. Silence offers no protection.
- Good faith and reasoned decisions matter
The court respected the adjudicator’s methodical and fair approach. This reinforces the necessity for adjudicators to deliver clearly reasoned decisions and for parties to respect the process.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Construction Muzzy Ltd v Davis Construction (South East) Ltd (2025) EWHC 2258 proves how the TCC balances speed with justice. Not only does it touch on key principles such as fairness and jurisdiction, but it also serves as a reminder that adjudication is not only a technical process, but a strategic tool. Understanding how and when enforcement shall succeed is critical for drafting contracts, advising clients and managing disputes.
If you would like to discuss this article further, please contact Lauren Hamilton or David McIvor.
