Background
Westgreen Construction Limited carried out construction and refurbishment works at a residential property in St John’s Wood under an amended JCT Standard Building Contract. The employer, Irina Kiryukhina, had paid two advance payments totalling £650,000. The contract specified circumstances in which those payments would be reimbursed, including agreement and payment of the final account or a contractually governed termination process.
Interim Certificate 25 omitted the advance payments from its gross valuation, effectively clawing them back before any contractual reimbursement condition had occurred. An adjudicator decided that £733,062.40 excluding VAT should have been payable under the certificate and pay-less notice. After Kiryukhina paid £83,062.40 but not the balance, Westgreen sought summary judgment enforcing the remaining £650,000 award. Kiryukhina argued that the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction and denied her natural justice, and alternatively requested a stay of enforcement.
The Court’s Holding
Mrs Justice O’Farrell granted summary judgment. The adjudicator had decided the dispute referred to him—whether the £650,000 advance payments were wrongly omitted from Interim Certificate 25—by considering arguments and documents deployed by both parties. His reliance on the parties’ treatment of the payments in earlier interim certificates did not take him outside his jurisdiction.
The court also found no material breach of natural justice. Although the adjudicator went further than necessary by describing the premature reimbursement as a breach of contract, he invited submissions on the point, awarded no damages for breach, and did not make that finding part of his formal decision or relief. Westgreen’s reliance on earlier certificates was not a new case and Kiryukhina had an adequate opportunity to respond.
The court refused a stay. None of the contractual conditions for reimbursement had occurred, the final-account process remained outstanding, and there was no allegation that Westgreen was insolvent, would dissipate the money, or could not repay it if later required. Judgment was entered for £650,000, VAT of £43,615, the adjudicator’s fee of £19,866, and interest, with indemnity costs.
Key Takeaways
- An adjudicator may consider the parties’ arguments, evidence, and contractual course of dealing when resolving the essential dispute referred.
- An unnecessary finding does not defeat enforcement where the parties could address it and it did not form part of the formal decision or relief.
- Possible future repayment of an advance payment is not enough to justify a stay when the contractual repayment conditions have not occurred and repayment risk is not established.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces the TCC’s robust approach to adjudication enforcement. Jurisdictional and natural-justice objections will not prevent summary enforcement merely because an adjudicator considered additional reasoning relevant to the referred dispute or made an unnecessary ancillary finding.
It also confirms that a court will apply bespoke advance-payment provisions according to their express conditions. A prospective final account or asserted common-law termination did not create an accrued or imminent right to repayment sufficient to keep the successful adjudication party from its money.