Share:
By Alex Atherton, Trainee
This case concerned the enforcement of the Adjudicator’s decision for VMA Services Ltd (“VMA”) to repay the sum of £102,656.67, with no interest awarded. The parties entered into a contract, incorporating the JCT Design and Build Sub-Contract Agreement Conditions 2016 for the design and installation of mechanical works on or around 16 October 2023 for the Contract Sum of £387,696.36.
VMA submitted an Application for Payment totalling the gross sum of £274,259.81, with a payment due of £106,434.88 after the deduction of previous payments. Rather than serving a Payment Notice or Pay Less Notice, Project One London Ltd (“POL”) served a notice of intention to refer a Dispute for Adjudication to determine the true value of AFP8, to which VMA asked the adjudicator to refuse adjudication and order payment of the sum claimed.
The adjudicator decided on 10 February 2025 that AFP8 was a Notified Sum to be paid before the True Value Adjudication was addressed and ordered the Claimant to pay the sum of £112,033.65 including interest. Following enforcement proceedings, the order was complied with. POL later referred a dispute to adjudication in relation to the true value of AFP8, where the adjudicator on 18 September 2025 directed VMA to repay the sum of £102,656.67 to POL.
The items that arose in POL’s case include defective design of the air conditioning, against which VMA argued that the adjudicator made the adjustment without proper consideration of this issue. While the adjudicator was not persuaded that the air conditioning design was out of specification, the valuation was at £23,703.66 for the item, reduced from £47,000 “to reflect the possibility of defects in the pipework”. VMA complained that the pipework issue was never properly raised and subsequently never properly dealt with, in breach of the rules of natural justice.
VMA further argued that the adjudicator ignored evidence in relation to water tank cost and testing issues. VMA argued that the adjudicator either rejected or ignored the actual cost of the water tank and instead submitted their own guess. In relation to testing, VMA claimed it was unfair to deprive them of £1,921 as a result of failure to consider. VMA alleged further reductions being arbitrary, such as on items relating to sanitaryware deducted by 20%, domestic water services by 50% and heating pipework by 50%.
In relation to these items, the Judge found that the adjudicator found a fair way of approaching the matter by accounting for the pipework issues in their effect on the valuation of the air conditioning item and that the evidence before the adjudicator was imprecise, with which the adjudicator did the best he could. It was further found that the adjudicator did not deliberately ignore any evidence and subsequently did not breach rules of natural justice in relation to the water tank and testing items. In relation to the allegation of arbitrary reductions, the Judge found that the adjudicator provided the best approximation he could in the time available.
Ultimately, it was held that VMA did not establish that they have real prospects of success in relation to any of their allegation of breach of natural justice. The task of an adjudicator is to find an interim solution which meets the needs of the case, and it was found that this is what this adjudicator did, entitling POL to enforce the award as claimed.