The High Court has granted John Paul Construction Limited leave to enforce an adjudicator’s decision requiring Tipperary Co-operative Creamery Limited to pay €918,460.16, including VAT, in a construction contract dispute. The order is provisional in effect: the adjudicator’s decision remains binding unless superseded, and the employer may pursue the dispute in later arbitration or court proceedings.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons gave judgment on 11 January 2022. The application concerned a payment dispute under the Construction Contracts Act 2013. The employer resisted enforcement, alleging that the adjudicator had failed to consider its defence, permitted the contractor to make a new claim during the adjudication, and determined matters already decided in an earlier adjudication.
The judge rejected each objection. He found that the employer’s criticism of the contractor’s project management and resourcing was not a separate defence omitted from the decision. Those points were developed across the employer’s response and addressed through the adjudicator’s assessment of ten alleged delay events. The adjudicator attributed responsibility for most, but not all, of the delays to the employer. The judge said disagreement with those conclusions went to the merits and could be pursued in arbitration, rather than establishing a failure to consider the defence.
The alleged new claim concerned additional preliminaries. Its amount was revised during the adjudication from €1,045,180 to €1,035,500 and then to €752,847.20 after the employer sought further particulars. The judge concluded that this was a refinement of the original claim, not a separate claim, and that the employer’s nine-day period to respond to the particulars was reasonable in the expedited process.
The employer also argued that the second adjudication revisited issues from an earlier decision concerning delay event six and the completion of RC tower lifts. The court found that the earlier adjudication had not involved an extension-of-time claim or a claim for prolongation costs, so the second decision did not determine the same issue.
The judge held that the adjudicator had observed fair procedures and had not exceeded his jurisdiction. He granted leave under the Act and the Rules of the Superior Courts to enforce the decision. Judgment was to be entered for €918,460.16, inclusive of VAT, with interest accruing from the date the court order is perfected. The judge’s provisional view was that the contractor should receive the costs of the application. Either party could make oral submissions on 18 January 2022 if seeking a different form of order.