Court rules adjudicators are able to apply their own expertise to reach fair decision in English construction contract disputes

The Technology and Construction Court, in Clegg Food Projects Limited v Prestige Car Direct Properties Limited, upheld the decision of an adjudicator who had used his own analysis to reach a valuation in a true value adjudication, departing from the methodologies advanced by either party to the proceedings.
 
Prestige Car Direct Properties Limited (the employer) employed Clegg Food Projects Limited (the contractor) under a JCT contract to construct a leisure and retail centre. 

When a dispute arose regarding the contractor's payment application, it referred the dispute to adjudication, nominating a Chartered Quantity Surveyor as adjudicator to decide on the valuation of the payment application. The parties submitted proposed valuations, both caveating their assessments with “or such other sum as the adjudicator may decide”. When the adjudicator handed down his decision, he rejected both parties' valuation figures, instead applying his own "fair and reasonable" rates, and ordered the employer to pay a figure between the parties' valuations. 

Failure to pay award

On the employer's failure to pay the adjudication award, the contractor sought to enforce the adjudicator's decision. The key issue for the court was whether the adjudicator had breached natural justice on the basis that there had been procedural unfairness because the adjudicator had introduced his own rates without informing the parties or seeking further submissions from them. The employer also argued that the adjudicator had provided inadequate reasoning for his valuation. 

Outcome

At the summary judgment hearing in August 2025, the court ruled in favour of the contractor, upholding the adjudicator's decision. It held that: 

• the adjudicator was entitled to reach an intermediate position within the range of the parties’ submissions using his own expertise and the documents and submissions advanced by the parties;
• the adjudicator was not required to consult the parties on every element of his reasoning or seek further submissions when sufficient materials to reach a decision had already been provided; and
• acceptable reasoning does not require an adjudicator to set out particular calculations or analysis and will only be inadequate if it is so incoherent it is impossible for the reasonable reader to make sense of it. 

Ultimately, as the adjudicator's rates were fairly assessed, and many were in fact more favourable to the employer than if the adjudicator had adopted the contractor's proposed rates, no material prejudice could be shown. The decision was therefore upheld on the grounds that there had been no breach of natural justice.

Osborne Clarke comment 

This case is a further illustration of the high bar required to overturn adjudicators' decisions. It demonstrates that only serious breaches of natural justice with enough material importance to the outcome of a case can justify challenging an adjudication award. 

The court's ruling clarifies that adjudicators can use their jurisdictional scope and technical knowledge to reach their own decisions (although the court did emphasise that it was "significant" that the adjudicator's valuation was within the range of the parties' submissions). Adjudication is a fast and imperfect process and it necessarily requires adjudicators to use an element of judgement. 

While this case may make parties question whether the time and cost of producing forensic valuation methodologies is worth it if adjudicators may always reach their own decision, it demonstrates why parties often seek an adjudicator with a legal, technical or quantum background (depending on the nature of the issues in dispute). It also reinforces the practical need to provide clear submissions with the necessary supporting evidence to assist an adjudicator in reaching a decision. 

This Insight was written with the assistance of Ellie Smyk, trainee solicitor at Osborne Clarke