The High Court has granted a contractor leave to enforce two construction adjudication decisions requiring an employer to pay €217,531, plus VAT where applicable. The court rejected the employer’s claim that the adjudicator breached fair procedures by not seeking further details of its overpayment defence.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled on 11 August 2023 that the adjudicator could decide the dispute on the material the parties had submitted. The employer had argued that a February 2023 valuation certificate showed the contractor had been overpaid, but it did not provide the adjudicator with a detailed breakdown supporting the revised valuation.
The dispute arose under the Construction Contracts Act 2013, which allows adjudication of payment disputes and provides for decisions to be enforced by the High Court with leave. The contractor, DNCF Ltd, sought enforcement of two decisions: one dated 14 March 2023 directing payment of €175,000, and another dated 2 April 2023 directing payment of €42,531 plus VAT as applicable. Each amount was due within seven days of the respective decision.
The employer, Genus Homes Ltd, relied on a valuation certificate issued by the contract’s nominated architect on 13 February 2023. It said a final account review found the contractor had been overpaid by €1,600,779.88. The adjudicator noted that the certified value of work had fallen by more than €1.3 million from the November 2022 valuation, but had not received a detailed calculation explaining the change. The contractor had also raised the lack of detail during the adjudication.
The employer said the adjudicator should have raised his concerns and given it an opportunity to provide a breakdown. It also challenged references in the adjudicator’s decisions to the valuation changes, the contract’s final account process and a €500,000 contingency sum.
The judge found that adjudication is intended to be an expedited process and does not require an adjudicator to invite parties to improve their submissions. The employer had chosen to rely on the revised valuation as a set-off and was responsible for providing evidence to support it. The adjudicator considered that defence on its merits; he did not refuse to hear it. The court concluded there had been no breach of fair procedures warranting refusal of enforcement.
The High Court proposed orders granting leave to enforce both decisions and entering judgment for €217,531 plus applicable VAT. As the adjudicator had not awarded interest, the proposed order provides for interest only from the date of the High Court judgment. The contractor was also awarded its costs, to be assessed if not agreed. The judgment notes that the employer may pursue the underlying dispute in arbitration or further legal proceedings.