The High Court has granted Aakon Construction Services Limited leave to enforce an adjudicator’s decision requiring Pure Fitout Associated Limited to pay €257,165.09, exclusive of VAT, in a construction payment dispute.
In a judgment delivered on 13 September 2021, Mr Justice Garrett Simons rejected Pure Fitout’s arguments that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction and failed to consider a substantive defence. The court ordered judgment in the adjudicated sum under the Construction Contracts Act 2013. It expressed a provisional view that Aakon was entitled to the costs of the enforcement application and that the judgment should carry Courts Acts interest; final orders were to be addressed later.
The dispute arose under a subcontract between Aakon, the subcontractor, and Pure Fitout, the main contractor. After Pure Fitout purported to terminate the subcontract in November 2020, Aakon submitted a payment claim notice seeking €369,273.68. Aakon argued that Pure Fitout had not responded within the required period and was therefore obliged to pay the amount claimed. Pure Fitout disputed the notice’s validity and also argued that Aakon had not established entitlement to sums claimed for variations.
The adjudicator found the payment claim notice valid and concluded that Pure Fitout’s failure to respond triggered an obligation to pay the claimed amount. The adjudicator did not assess the works’ true value, reasoning that Pure Fitout first had to comply with the payment decision before starting a separate valuation adjudication. The adjudicated amount included €14,940 for the adjudicator’s fees and expenses.
Justice Simons held that the notice referring the dispute to adjudication sufficiently identified the payment claim and the issue of whether failure to respond required payment. He rejected Pure Fitout’s objections about ambiguity, multiple disputes and differences between two applications for appointment of an adjudicator. On fair procedures, he found the adjudicator had not ignored the valuation defence but had decided it could not be considered at that stage.
The court’s decision concerned only leave to enforce. It did not finally determine the underlying payment dispute or whether the adjudicator’s interpretation of the payment rules was correct. The judgment said Pure Fitout remained entitled to pursue arbitration or court proceedings and could seek recovery of any overpayment if successful. The judgment also directed the parties to raise any dispute about the final form of order by written submissions, with the matter listed for final orders on 4 October 2021.