Construction adjudication enforcement: Key court decisions from 2025 and 2026

As we reach the conclusions of 2026, we can look back and see that the last two years saw numerous enforcement proceedings of adjudicators’ awards under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Various topics were addressed in these proceedings. Issues including the validity of payment applications, trespass on previous disputes, natural justice, pay less notices and the Building Safety Act were discussed. Below is a short summary of some selected cases.

Payment applications and notified sums

Liberty Roofing (East Midlands) Ltd v Midelton Developments (Church Street) Ltd [2026] TCC Manchester

This case relates to an error in law as applied by the adjudicator. The parties had agreed a schedule of dates for payment applications and the adjudicator had decided that, whilst applications were made later than the scheduled dates and were invalid as Default Payment Notices, they created a notified sum for the purposes of the Act. The court disagreed with the adjudicator’s interpretation and found that the adjudicator had made an error in law.

Adjudicator powers and completion dates

Mace Construct Ltd v Baltic Investment Holdings Ltd [2026] EWHC 976 (TCC)

Here, the adjudicator was asked to review and decide the completion date and it was found that the adjudicator did have the power to decide a completion date earlier than a completion date that had been established by the parties through their own contractual procedures.

Payment notices and pay less notices

Vision Construct Ltd v Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Ltd [2025] EWHC 2707 (TCC)

This case related to whether a payment notice can serve as a pay less notice. Gypcraft Drylining Contractors had argued in the adjudication that their payment application was a valid payment application. However, Vision Construct Ltd argued that their payment notice was a valid payment notice and was not issued out of time. Even if it was, they argued that it acted as a pay less notice in any event.

It was found that the payment notice was a payment notice and could not, in hindsight, be said to be a pay less notice.

Natural justice challenges

Project One London Ltd v VMA Services Ltd [2025] EWHC 3384 (TCC)

This case related to an issue of natural justice where the unsuccessful party sought to resist enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision due to an alleged breach of natural justice or the adjudicator exceeding their jurisdiction. Here, it was found that the adjudicator was tasked with finding an interim solution that met the needs of the case and the decision was enforced.

Clerkenwell Lifestyle (UK) Ltd v HG Construction Ltd [2026] EWHC 1406 (TCC)

In a consideration of natural justice, it was argued that the adjudicator did not consider a defence that had been put forward by one of the parties. However, it was found that the adjudicator had done what they had been requested to do, in that they had decided an entitlement to an extension of time and associated damages. It was found that there was no breach of natural justice.

Building Safety Act and adjudication

Crest Nicholson & Others v Ardmore Construction Ltd (in Administration) & Others [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC)

This case related to the Building Safety Act and the effect of an adjudicator’s award in relation to whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction and whether the contractor was liable for defects in several residential blocks that had arisen under the Defective Premises Act 1972.

The contract included an amended provision to the adjudication clause allowing the parties to refer a dispute to an adjudicator that was arising under the contract. Therefore, this wording extended the adjudicator’s jurisdiction to decide relevant liability under the Building Safety Act, and it was found that a Building Liability Order could be made.

Payment notices, pay less notices and insolvency

Laing O’Rourke Delivery Ltd v Shepperton Studios Ltd [2026] EWHC 612 (TCC)

Turning to another case related to payment and the issue of payment notices, it was to be determined whether a payment notice was valid under the terms of the contract, as it did not provide a build-up to the gross sum before deducting payments that had previously been made.

The court found that the payment notice was invalid for this reason. However, the court went on to examine whether the pay less notice issued formed the notified sum. It was held that the pay less notice did form the notified sum because, despite it starting with an unexplained gross figure from the original payment notice, the deductions were properly laid out in the pay less notice.

The awards had therefore been calculated on the basis of the payment application less the deductions made in the pay less notice.

A further argument was put forward relating to previous adjudicators’ decisions awarding a reduction in the sums that had been found to be due in this adjudication. It was found by the court that the defending party was not able to rely on these arguments, as the point in contention related to the notified sum under the current payment application.

A further issue relating to insolvency was raised. However, it was found that the group company had provided a guarantee of repayment and therefore no stay was awarded.

Jurisdiction and adjudicator appointments

RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd [2025] EWHC 2224 (TCC)

This case related to a jurisdictional challenge due to an application being made to a nominating body when a named adjudicator was listed in the contract.

When applying for an adjudicator to be nominated, one of the parties stated that it was in dispute with the named adjudicator due to previous disputes having been decided by that adjudicator. This party therefore did not want the same adjudicator appointed in the new dispute.

It was found that the explanation in the nomination application was not clear and that the opposing party had a reasonable chance of arguing that the nomination was invalid.

Trespass and previous decisions

Construction Muzzy Ltd v Davis Construction (South East) Ltd [2025] EWHC 2258 (TCC)

Here, the issue related to trespass in that the argument was made that the adjudicator had trespassed on their own decision in a prior adjudication relating to the validity of a payment notice.

It was found that, in deciding that the payment notice was valid, and doing so in the same manner as in an earlier dispute, the adjudicator had not trespassed on their prior decision and had not decided the same dispute that was referred under a previous adjudicative process.

Conclusion

These cases demonstrate the continued importance of adjudication as a fast and effective method of dispute resolution within the construction industry. They also highlight the courts’ ongoing consideration of issues relating to payment mechanisms, natural justice, jurisdiction and the impact of the Building Safety Act. As these decisions show, careful attention to contractual procedures and adjudication provisions remains essential for parties involved in construction disputes.

Interested in construction law and dispute resolution?

Register your interest and explore the University of the Built Environment’s new LLM Construction Law programme, launching September 2027, covering construction law, contracts, adjudication and dispute resolution.