The High Court has ordered enforcement of an adjudicator’s award in a construction payment dispute between Finnegan Contracts Limited and Killycard Developments Limited, finding no procedural or jurisdictional issue that would justify refusing the application.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered judgment on 17 December 2024 in an application under the Construction Contracts Act 2013. He said the respondent had had every opportunity to address the issues in the adjudication, and that the adjudicator’s decision was carefully reasoned. No fundamental jurisdictional issue was raised.
The court noted that it retains discretion to refuse enforcement where there has been a material, obvious breach of fair procedures. However, once the required formal proofs are established, enforcement will generally be allowed, with the underlying payment dispute capable of being argued later in arbitration or court proceedings.
The judge also addressed interest. The adjudicator had set interest at €38.10 for each continuing calendar day. The court directed that this rate continue after judgment. The judge distinguished this from a previous case in which an adjudicator had made no provision for interest, and the successful party sought “Courts Act interest”. In that earlier decision, the court held that section 22 of the Courts Act 1981 did not apply to enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision under the 2013 Act.
Here, because the adjudicator had expressly fixed an interest rate, and there was no suggestion that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to do so or that the rate was penal or disproportionate, the judge said the rate should continue post-judgment.
The applicant was entirely successful in obtaining the reliefs sought. The court ordered that it receive its costs, to be adjudicated under Part 10 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 if the parties could not agree them.
The judgment concerns enforcement of the adjudicator’s award at this stage; the court did not determine the underlying payment dispute on its merits.