The High Court has refused an application to enforce an adjudicator’s award of €1,531,830.85 after finding that the notice starting the adjudication was sent by email, contrary to the parties’ agreement that such notices be delivered by registered post.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons held that the payment dispute had never been validly referred to adjudication and that the purported award was therefore a nullity. His judgment, delivered on 13 March 2025, concerned the procedure for referring a payment dispute under the Construction Contracts Act 2013.
Tenderbids Ltd, trading as Bastion, had purported to send its notice of intention to refer the dispute to adjudication by email to two directors of Electrical Waste Management Ltd on 21 June 2024. Tenderbids produced evidence of a delivery receipt and an email-opened notification; the judgment records that this evidence had not yet been challenged. The contract, however, required notices under the Act to be sent by registered post, with an exception allowing email for payment claim notices.
An adjudicator was nominated on 9 July 2024. Electrical Waste Management did not participate in the adjudication. On 8 August, the adjudicator purported to direct payment of the award within seven days, finding that email was an effective means of serving the notice. The High Court said that finding was legally erroneous given the parties’ agreement.
Tenderbids argued that the defect should not invalidate the process because the respondent had received the email and suffered no prejudice. It also argued that the respondent should have raised a jurisdictional objection during the adjudication. The judge rejected those submissions. The Act allowed parties to agree how notices were delivered, and the court found no provision allowing it to excuse failure to follow that agreed method. The respondent was not required to engage with a process that was a nullity, the judge said.
The court refused leave to enforce the award. On costs, the judge’s view was provisionally that Electrical Waste Management should recover its costs. Either party was given 14 days to notify the registrar if it sought a different costs order and arrange for the matter to be relisted. If no such notification was received, a costs order would be drawn up in line with that provisional view.