In Murnells London Ltd v Beale [2025] EWHC 2651 (TCC), the court rejected the defendant's attempt to resist enforcement of an adjudicator's decision by introducing new arguments at the enforcement stage that had not been raised before the adjudicator. The adjudicator's decision was therefore enforced.
The key issue
The claimant sought summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator's decision awarding the sum of £365,332.97 plus interest. In response to the application, the defendant raised two new jurisdictional arguments opposing enforcement which had not been raised before the adjudicator, namely that: 1) the contract in question was with a different entity (Murnells Limited, rather than Murnells London Ltd), and 2) the dispute regarding an extension of time had not properly crystallised before it was referred to adjudication.
The decision
The court granted summary judgment to the claimant, enforcing the adjudicator's award. The court rejected both jurisdictional challenges raised by the defendant, finding that: 1) the contracting entity argument had only "fanciful prospects" of success given the draft contract the defendant's own quantity surveyor prepared referred to Murnells London Ltd as the contractor, and 2) the crystallisation argument failed because the defendant's approach was "far too narrow" and required "an excessive degree of particularisation".
The court justified the decision by stating that allowing the expansion of jurisdictional issues at this stage would undermine the adjudication process and the "pay now, argue later" approach.
The court, referring to Bresco Electrical Services v Michael J Lonsdale [2019] EWCA Civ 27, held that jurisdictional challenges must be appropriate and clear and made at the time where possible, and that general reservations of position may not be effective if the party raising the reservation knew or should have known of specific grounds but failed to articulate them. In those circumstances, the court held that a general reservation of rights did not allow the defendant to raise entirely new arguments at enforcement stage.
Takeaways
This decision reminds parties of the importance of adopting an open and honest approach to adjudications, the court will not entertain "fanciful" arguments. Further, any attempt to reserve a party's position generally and widely when specifics were capable of being provided at the time is likely to be given short shrift by the court.
