Judgment: 2026-01-12 · Court archive

High Court refuses to enforce €1.4m construction adjudication award

High Court · [2026] IEHC 5

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Electrical Waste Management Ltd
  • Mr Justice Garrett Simons
  • Adjudicator
What

High Court refuses to enforce €1.4m construction adjudication award

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Tay Lane
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 26 January 2026

    Costs and the precise final order were left for a hearing on 26 January 2026.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court first held that the dispute was validly referred to adjudication. A claim does not cease to be a “payment dispute” merely because it may ultimately prove legally mistaken or unmeritorious.

The High Court has refused to enforce an adjudicator’s decision requiring Electrical Waste Management Ltd to pay more than €1.4 million to Tenderbids Ltd, trading as Bastion, in a dispute over a construction project at Greenogue, Rathcoole.

Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered judgment on 12 January 2026. The case concerned a construction contract worth €6.986 million plus VAT for a metal waste recycling facility at Tay Lane.

Bastion had issued a payment claim notice seeking €1,402,457.13 excluding VAT. Electrical Waste Management did not issue a response within the 21 days specified under the Construction Contracts Act 2013.

The dispute was referred to adjudication. The employer accepted before the adjudicator that its failure to respond meant Bastion was entitled to payment in full. The adjudicator consequently directed payment of the entire claimed sum without determining the underlying merits of the disputed works.

The High Court first held that the dispute was validly referred to adjudication. A claim does not cease to be a “payment dispute” merely because it may ultimately prove legally mistaken or unmeritorious.

The central issue was different: whether the 2013 Act itself creates what the judgment called a “default direction to pay”. Simons J held that it does not.

The Act requires a paying party that contests a claim to respond within 21 days, but does not state that failure to do so automatically makes the full claimed amount payable or removes the right to defend the claim on its merits in adjudication.

Although Electrical Waste Management had conceded the point before the adjudicator, the court exceptionally permitted it to change position because the issue affected the operation of the statutory adjudication system generally.

Simons J held that enforcing the award would endorse a form of default decision-making not authorised by legislation and inconsistent with fair procedures. The enforcement application was therefore refused.

Costs and the precise final order were left for a hearing on 26 January 2026.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review