The High Court has ordered Pure Fitout Associated Limited to pay Aakon Construction Services Limited €257,165.09, exclusive of VAT, to enforce an adjudicator’s decision dated 25 June 2021. The court also awarded interest from the date its order is perfected and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant’s costs.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Garrett Simons on 6 October 2021, dealt with the form of order following an earlier judgment granting leave to enforce the adjudicator’s decision. It considered whether the amount should be reduced in light of a second adjudication, whether interest was payable, and how costs should be allocated.
The respondent said a second adjudicator had valued the disputed work at a lower figure and determined that €94,789.38, exclusive of VAT, was due to the applicant. But the second decision was not put in evidence, and the respondent had not started court proceedings to enforce it. The applicant might dispute its validity, the judge said, so the court could not assume it was valid and enforceable.
The judge also rejected the respondent’s reliance on section 6(10) of the Construction Contracts Act 2013. A later adjudication does not, by itself, set aside an earlier decision; under the section, an earlier decision remains binding until the dispute is settled or a different decision is reached in court or arbitration. A subsequent adjudication may be relevant to a court’s discretion in a suitable enforcement case, but the judge found no basis to reduce or withhold payment here. The respondent’s proposed escrow arrangement also lacked evidence of a real risk that the applicant could not repay any amount later found due.
The court refused the applicant’s request for interest under section 22 of the Courts Act 1981. It held that, in a summary application to enforce an adjudicator’s decision, the court does not determine the underlying payment dispute in the way needed to assess that interest. The first adjudicator had refused interest, and that decision remained binding unless displaced through court or arbitration proceedings. Interest would therefore run only from perfection of the court order under the Debtors (Ireland) Act 1840.
The applicant was awarded its costs, including specified work relating to service outside the jurisdiction and hearings on 30 August, 3 September and 4 October 2021. The court declined to order costs on the higher legal practitioner and client basis. It also refused to stay execution of the costs order pending an appeal, citing the Act’s “pay now, argue later” policy.