The High Court has refused an employer’s application to enforce an adjudicator’s decision in a dispute over a timber-frame construction contract, finding that the claim referred to adjudication was for common-law compensation rather than a contractual payment.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons held that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction under the Construction Contracts Act 2013 because the contract made no provision for payment to the employer following wrongful termination by the contractor. The adjudicator’s decision was therefore a nullity and could not be enforced under the Act.
The contract covered the design, supply and erection of a timber-frame structure at an existing dwelling. The employer said the contractor failed to erect it by an extended deadline of 16 August 2024 and purported to terminate the contract for repudiatory breach. The employer then referred a claim seeking €224,579.68, including repayment of sums paid and compensation for project-management, scaffolding, inflation, rental, electricity, window-storage and holiday costs.
The judge ruled that statutory adjudication is confined to disputes about payments stipulated in a construction contract. It does not cover a claim for common-law damages merely because the outcome affects how much money one party may receive. A contractual termination clause providing for payment to an employer could give rise to an adjudicable payment dispute, but this contract contained no such term.
The contractor also argued that the adjudication was procedurally unfair because it was not given more time to respond and the adjudicator had failed to consider its position. The judge rejected those arguments. The contractor had missed the timetable for its response, and the adjudicator was entitled to proceed after giving it a reasonable opportunity to participate. The court said the adjudicator had considered potential arguments through the documentary evidence available.
A further objection alleged that the contract was tainted by planning illegality because the proposed works involved demolishing part of the existing dwelling without planning permission. The judge said the evidence was insufficient to determine whether the works would have departed from the permission, but that question did not decide the enforcement application. Even assuming a planning breach, the contract was lawful on its face and the Planning and Development Act 2000 did not require contracts of that kind to be treated as void or unenforceable.
The court refused the enforcement relief in its entirety. The judgment gives a provisional view that the contractor should recover two-thirds of its legal costs, with adjustments and a cap on written-submission costs. The parties were to return on 9 October 2025 for submissions on the final form of order; the judgment does not record the eventual costs order.