The High Court has ruled that an adjudicator acted within jurisdiction and did not breach natural justice when awarding Principal Construction Limited €643,635.98 in a payment dispute with Beneavin Contractors Limited.
Mr Justice Meenan said Principal was entitled to the relief it sought to enforce the adjudicator’s decision under the Construction Contracts Act 2013. He did not make the consequential orders in this judgment. Instead, he gave the parties 14 days to file short written submissions on what orders should follow.
The dispute arose from construction and extension work at Beneavin Lodge Nursing Home in Glasnevin, Dublin. Principal took over the project after Sammon Contracting Ireland Ltd entered examinership in April 2018, leaving works incomplete. Principal completed the work in November 2018 and later disputed the contract administrator’s assessment of its final account and variations.
After earlier adjudication processes did not conclude, Principal issued a new notice of adjudication on 5 June 2020. The adjudicator issued the €643,635.98 award on 4 August 2020.
Beneavin argued that a final certificate issued in December 2019 prevented the payment dispute from being referred to adjudication, and that the adjudicator had therefore lacked jurisdiction. It also argued that refusing to hear its €134,000 counterclaim for liquidated damages breached natural justice.
The judge rejected both objections. He said the adjudicator’s jurisdiction to hear a payment dispute came from the 2013 Act, which gives a party to a construction contract a right to refer such a dispute to adjudication. Contract terms could be considered in deciding the dispute, but did not remove that statutory right.
On the counterclaim, the judge found that the adjudicator had considered its substance. The adjudicator had concluded that delays arose from instructed variations caused by Beneavin, the contract administrator and the design team, and that Principal was entitled to an award arising from delay. The judge said the adjudicator had acted within the relevant principles on jurisdiction and natural justice.
The judgment therefore establishes Principal’s entitlement to the relief sought in its application, but the precise consequential orders remained to be determined after the parties’ submissions.