The recent Technology & Construction Court decision in Clegg Food Projects Ltd v Prestige Car Direct Properties Ltd [2025] EWHC 2173 (TCC) offers a firm reaffirmation of the strong pro‑enforcement stance in adjudication, and clarifies how far an adjudicator may stray from party proposals without breaching natural justice.
Factual Background & Procedural History
The parties entered into an amended JCT Design & Build contract (10 November 2022) for a leisure and retail centre in Bishop Auckland. After practical completion, a dispute arose over Payment Application 37 (27 August 2024), which concerned the valuation of eight variations, plus entitlement to extensions of time, prolongation, and the effect of liquidated damages. Prestige issued a payment notice on 30 August 2024 that, according to Clegg, undervalued the claim.
The dispute proceeded to adjudication. The referral asked not only for a valuation but invited the adjudicator to decide “such other sum as the adjudicator may decide.” On 17 January 2025, the adjudicator issued an 88‑page decision. He found that Prestige had undervalued the eight changes, awarded EOTs (reducing LADs), and other reliefs. He valued the payment due to Clegg at £541,880.12 plus VAT, with interest and adjudicator’s fees.
Prestige argued that the adjudicator had breached natural justice by adopting his own rates and re‑measuring items without consultation, and also that his reasons were insufficient. Clegg sought summary judgment to enforce the award.
The court had to consider:
- Whether the adjudicator breached natural justice by adopting new rates or remeasurements without further consultation.
- Whether the adjudicator’s reasons were sufficient to explain his decision.
- Whether any procedural breach was material, causing substantial injustice.
- Whether any part of the decision should be severed if defective.
Natural Justice / Consultation
The court rejected Prestige’s contention that the adjudicator should have invited further submissions on rates or remeasurements. Both parties had expressly allowed the adjudicator to award “such sum as he may decide,” giving him scope to depart from either party’s figures. The issues of rates and measurement had been fairly canvassed in submissions already. The adjudicator’s use of different rates was not a ‘frolic of his own’ but within the spectrum of the evidence presented.
Materiality / Prejudice
Even if a technical breach had occurred, Prestige failed to show substantial injustice. In many cases the adjudicator’s figures were more favourable to Prestige than those of either party. The areas where Prestige was disadvantaged were minor in financial terms compared with the overall award. The court concluded there was no prejudice sufficient to refuse enforcement.
Sufficiency of Reasons
The judge held that the 88‑page decision provided adequate reasoning. While more detail could have been given, the adjudicator explained his approach in a way that was coherent and intelligible. The threshold for inadequate reasons was not met.
Implications & Key Takeaways
This case underscores several important points:
- Broad invitations to the adjudicator create wide discretion to adopt figures between the parties’ positions.
- Where matters have been canvassed in submissions, an adjudicator is not required to consult further on each step of reasoning.
- Complaints about detail will rarely succeed unless they cause real and material injustice.
- Reasoning need not be exhaustive; a coherent broad‑brush explanation is sufficient.
- Parties should consider carefully how they frame adjudication referrals, as this defines the scope of what can later be challenged.
The decision in Clegg Food Projects v Prestige Car Direct reinforces the courts’ commitment to uphold adjudicators’ awards. Parties cannot expect minor objections on procedure or granularity to succeed unless they can show genuine prejudice. It is another reminder that adjudication is intended to be quick, pragmatic, and enforceable.