The TCC recently refused to enforce a £2m+ adjudication award against an employer following an application for summary judgment made by the contractor, as there was a real prospect of the employer demonstrating at trial that the contract under which the adjudicator was nominated simply did not exist and therefore that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to make the award.
Adjudication background and the competing contractual narratives
WLP Trading & Marketing Ltd (the 'employer') had engaged High Tech Construction Ltd (the 'contractor') with regards to groundworks and substructure construction works at a residential development at 162 Willesden Lane, London.
In September 2025, the contractor commenced an adjudication against the employer for unpaid sums. The employer challenged the adjudicator's jurisdiction on the basis that the foundational contract under which the adjudicator had been nominated did not exist.
The contractor claimed that the construction works were governed by a JCT Design and Build Sub‑Contract (DB/Sub/A 2016) allegedly signed at a meeting on 26 January 2023. The employer firmly denied the existence of such contract. Their position was that the parties (i) initially agreed only an oral / WhatsApp‑based contract in relation to specific enabling works and thereafter (ii) agreed a separate contract covering only reinforced concrete frame works.
The adjudicator rejected the employer's submissions due to lack of evidence. The adjudication proceeded and determined that the contractor was entitled to payment in the sum of £2.14m (plus interest) (the 'award').
The contractor thereafter made an application for summary judgment to enforce the award. The employer resisted enforcement on the primary ground that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the contract relied upon was not the genuine agreement between the parties and/or that the award was procured by fraud. The employer submitted metadata evidence, signature analysis, and contemporaneous meeting minutes to support this claim, which had not been submitted in the adjudication.
The legal issue: Did the adjudicator have jurisdiction?
The core question was whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the award. The court held that this was not a minor disagreement about wording; it went to the very existence of the contract under which the adjudicator was appointed. If that contract did not exist, the adjudicator had no power to act at all.
Based on the evidence submitted, the court found that there was at least a real prospect of the employer succeeding at trial, meaning summary judgment could not be granted. The court refused to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.
Key takeaways
Be able to prove the existence of the contract: An adjudication award may not be enforceable if there is a dispute as to the very existence of the foundational contract. An award based on the 'wrong' contract can invalidate the adjudication entirely. Even a well-reasoned, technically sound adjudicator’s decision is unenforceable if the adjudicator was not properly appointed due to the referring party relying on the wrong foundational contract. Referring parties should therefore ensure that they can demonstrate the existence of the contract relied upon by:
- Keeping clear evidence of when and how contracts are agreed, in particular signed copies, meeting minutes, email chains
- Avoiding reliance on later circulated documents as proof of earlier execution, and
- Keeping originals of signed documents
Beware of metadata: Ensure contract PDFs (e.g. via Docusign or similar) are generated cleanly without risky metadata trails. Metadata analysis and handwriting expert evidence was admitted in the above case to successfully challenge the authenticity of the alleged JCT contract relied upon by the referring party.
Treat informal forms of communication (including WhatsApp messages) like formal correspondence: Ensure that internal and external messages reflect the actual contractual position and correct any misunderstandings immediately and in writing.
Beware that a split scope of work creates risk if the contracts are unclear: For this project, the contractor delivered enabling works, concrete frame works, and potentially wider works, however the boundaries between these alleged contracts were found to be unclear, fueling the Employer's jurisdictional case. Always document whether each package is part of one contract or separate contracts and issue clear subcontract orders or variations for each change of scope.
