Can Contractors Resist Enforcement of an Adjudicator's Decision? Lessons from Kingsmead Homes v Laycock Mechanical Services [2025]

A Technology and Construction Court (TCC) ruling demonstrates that adjudicators' decisions may be successfully challenged where a clear error has been made by the adjudicator which would be unconscionable for the court to ignore.

In Kingsmead Homes Ltd v Laycock Mechanical Services Ltd, the court granted declaratory relief under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, enabling the contractor to resist enforcement of an adjudicator's decision. The case offers important guidance on how construction programmes can form part of subcontracts and when the courts will intervene to correct an adjudicator's material oversight.

What Was the Dispute About?

Kingsmead Homes Ltd (the contractor) engaged Laycock Mechanical Services Ltd (the subcontractor) to carry out plumbing and electrical works. A dispute arose when Kingsmead deducted liquidated damages, alleging that Laycock had caused delays on site.

Laycock referred the matter to adjudication and was awarded £27,895.26 plus VAT and £4,000 in fees. When Kingsmead refused to pay, Laycock commenced Part 7 enforcement proceedings and sought summary judgment under the well-established "pay now, argue later" principle. Kingsmead responded by bringing a Part 8 claim for declaratory relief, seeking to resist enforcement of the adjudicator's decision.

What was the error made by the Adjudicator?

The central issue was whether the subcontract included an agreed completion date. The adjudicator found that an August 2023 programme containing an accelerated completion date had not been incorporated into the subcontract. However, he failed to consider an earlier programme from July 2023, emailed to Laycock with a copy of the subcontract for signing.  Clause 6.8 of the subcontract contained the following wording "Commencement and completion:- see attached programme" though the programme was not physically attached to the signed subcontract.

Because the adjudicator concluded that no contractual completion date existed, he determined that no extension of time mechanism was engaged. He then substituted a "reasonable period" for completion.

When Will the TCC Allow a Part 8 Challenge to Block Enforcement of an Adjudicator’s Decision?

The TCC applied the restrictive four-stage gateway test set out in Section 9.4.5 of the TCC Guide. This test permits the court to intervene where:

• The adjudicator has made a clear jurisdictional error.
• The error relates to a short, self-contained legal issue.
• The issue can be resolved without the need for oral evidence.
• It would be unconscionable for the court to ignore the error.

The court was satisfied that all four stages were met. The adjudicator's failure to consider the July 2023 programme was a clear error which was unconscionable for the court to ignore.

How Did the Court Interpret the Contract?

Applying the objective test for contractual interpretation, the court held that a reasonable observer would understand Clause 6.8—which stated "Commencement and completion: – see attached programme"—as incorporating the July 2023 programme into the subcontract. Laycock's witness evidence confirmed receipt of that programme.

The court rejected Laycock's reliance on the general proposition from Chitty on Contracts that programmes are not usually treated as contract documents. In this case, the express contractual language made the position clear.

What Does "Unconscionable" Mean in This Context?

Laycock argued that the unconscionability limb of the test could not be engaged because Kingsmead had not raised the July programme issue during the adjudication. The court rejected this argument, finding that Kingsmead had argued that, "The attached programme" would be sufficient to give rise to a completion date albeit that, during the adjudication, they were relying upon the August programme as the "attached programme”.

Given that a proper legal analysis of the July programme had a significant prospect of producing a different outcome, the court found it would be unconscionable to ignore the adjudicator’s error.  Kingsmead was therefore granted the declaration sought.

What Are the Key Takeaways?

• Successful Part 8 challenges are rare but possible. Resisting enforcement of an adjudicator's decision is uncommon, but this case confirms genuine scope for intervention where a material error is made by the adjudicator.
• Construction programmes can be incorporated into contracts. Despite general convention treating programmes as non-contractual documents, express contractual language (such as Clause 6.8 in this case) can incorporate them. However, parties should bear in mind that there can be pitfalls in designating the programme a contract document such as:
  • Reduced flexibility for the contractor: Incorporating a programme into a contract obliges a contractor to carry out the works strictly in accordance with the programme, achieving all key dates shown and not just the final date for completion, bedding in more risk of being in breach of contract.
  • Employer reliance on its professional team: it would impose extra obligations on the employer such as binding dates for providing information and approvals to the contractor. This would require additional obligations on the professional team and may require specific drafting in their appointments to include obligations to comply with the employer’s programming obligations.
• Unconscionability focuses on consequences, not procedure. The test for court intervention centres on whether ignoring the error would produce an unjust result.