Disputes under more than one contract: Jurisdictional issues to remember if considering adjudication
It is a well-established legal principle that without jurisdiction an adjudicator’s decision will not be enforceable. Under section 108(2)(a) of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (Construction Act) a party can refer ‘a dispute’ under a construction contract at any time. If a party refers more than one dispute under a single contract or commences an adjudication where the dispute concerns more than one contract, the adjudicator will not have jurisdiction to decide that “dispute”. These issues were recently considered in Delta Fabrication & Glazing Ltd v Watkin, Jones & Son Ltd  EWHC 1034 (TCC).
The claimant (Delta) and defendant (Watkin) entered into two distinct sub-contracts, both of which were for different works at the same development in Walthamstow. However, the parties agreed that the payment process under both contracts would be carried out simultaneously and through a single application process. At the end of the project a single final overall sum for all the works was agreed. A dispute over payment of this final sum arose which Delta referred to adjudication.
Watkin challenged the adjudicator’s jurisdiction from the outset on the basis that Delta had referred disputes under the two separate contracts to the adjudicator in the same adjudication. The adjudicator issued a non-binding decision that he had jurisdiction and continued with the adjudication, eventually deciding the sum of £2,244,210.28 was due to Delta.
Delta sought to enforce the adjudicator’s decision raising three arguments in favour of enforcement:
- The parties had agreed, by their conduct and the way in which the contracts were administered, to vary the two contracts so that they amalgamated to form one singular contract. On this basis, Delta argued that it did not refer disputes arising under more than one contract to the adjudicator, thereby ensuring that he had jurisdiction and his award was valid. Delta relied on a payment notice dated February 2020, which referenced a single sum for payment. Delta argued that this constituted the offer to amalgamate the contracts.
- For the purposes of the Construction Act (both in terms of the payment process and adjudication), it was possible to treat two separate contracts as a single contract where the parties had elected to merge or consolidate the payment process of the two contracts, even though in all other respects they were to be treated as two separate contracts under law.
- Watkin was estopped from denying that the separate contracts should be treated as one for the purposes of the Construction Act. It argued that a payment notice dated February 2020 where Watkin referenced a single sum for payment under both contracts was a representation that the contracts were to be treated as one. Delta argued that it had then relied on that representation and suffered detriment as a result.
The Court’s decision
With regard to the first argument, the court held that the documents put forward by Delta did not unequivocally demonstrate that the parties had mutually intended for the contracts to be amalgamated. The court held that although the February 2020 payment notice was for one figure for both contracts, it did not have the effect of amalgamating the contracts as the supporting documentation dealt with the calculations for each contract separately.
When considering the parties’ conduct, Judge Watson highlighted examples of Delta referring to both contracts after the alleged amalgamation and emphasised the fact that subsequent correspondence did not make reference to an amalgamation of the contracts.
The primary evidence Delta relied on was the final account documentation, included in which was a letter from Watkin to Delta. Delta argued that Watkin’s reference to a “statement of Final Account for the above contract” was indicative of the agreement to amalgamate the contracts, an argument which the adjudicator had agreed. The court departed from the adjudicator’s decision and held that the wording “the above contract” should not be read as a reference to the two contracts being amalgamated into one, but rather as a reference to the main contract, under which Delta and Watkin had entered into the two sub-contracts.
As to Delta’s second argument, Judge Watson was not persuaded that the parties’ conduct gave rise to a single contract for the purposes of the Construction Act, but not for any other purposes. Judge Watson held that the Act does not suggest that the words “contract” or “agreement” should be read as or given anything other than their natural meaning. Delta failed to persuade the court that it was possible for the sub-contracts to have been amalgamated to form one contract within the definition of the Act, but not at common law.
The court dismissed Delta’s final argument on the basis that it had failed to produce any evidence in support of its argument and therefore did not prove the essential elements of estoppel were satisfied. The February 2020 payment notice had already been considered and did not amount to a representation that Watkin was treating the sub-contracts as one, it merely evidenced Watkin’s wish to administer the payment provisions of both contracts together. No evidence of Delta’s reliance on Watkin’s alleged representation was presented, and Delta’s conduct by referring to more than one contract following the alleged amalgamation was inconsistent with Delta’s argument of reliance. Finally the court was not persuaded that Delta had suffered a detriment by incurring additional costs in dealing with the payment applications as though they were one contract.
In dismissing Delta’s application for summary judgment, the court concluded that the adjudicator had lacked jurisdiction because Delta had referred disputes under two separate contracts to the adjudicator in one referral. This case demonstrates that unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, entering into and executing two sub-contracts, or purchase orders, will be treated as two distinct contracts for the purposes of the Construction Act regardless of how they are administered.
Some key takeaways from the draft legislation for Finance Bill 2022-23
In July 2022, the government published draft legislation ahead of potential inclusion in Finance Bill 2022-23.
Top of the corporate agenda: modern slavery failings and mandatory supply chain disclosures
The Financial Reporting Council Lab has gone live with two new publications, signalling a market shift on supply chain issues.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises the DiscoverIE Group on its acquisition of the CDT Group
The CDT Group, will be integrated with discoverIE's Contour business cluster within the Sensing & Connectivity division.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Topland Group on new joint venture and £50m acquisition and financing of Allen House
Charles Russell Speechlys completes third major transaction with Topland Group this year
Bloomberg quotes Piers Master on the Zara family office
“Clients are increasingly mindful of the need to not to have all their eggs in one basket”
Steven Carey and Carolyn Davies write for Construction News on a recent cladding court ruling
Cladding court ruling provides post-Grenfell liability pointers
Clare Davis writes for Personnel Today on hot weather and employment law
Hot summers, hot desks – employment law advice on working through heatwaves
Q&A: Tackling technicalities and typos
Our experts answer a landlord’s query about the validity of a section 21 notice
Q&A: The qualifying criteria explained
What do landlords need to prove to satisfy ground (g) of section 30(1) of the 1954 Act for the purposes of a new tenancy?
Charles Russell Speechlys has advised the owners of The Centre for Reproductive and Genetic Health (CRGH) on its sale to FutureLife
CRGH is the largest private fertility clinic in the London IVF market.
Green leases crucial to achieving net zero in the built environment
‘Net zero’ requires emissions to be reduced as far as possible, and for the remaining (or ‘residual’) emissions to be removed or captured.
Samuel Lear answers the EG Legal Q&A on code rights
Q&A: Code rights queries answered
Retail Bulletin quotes Charlotte Duly on the House of Zana trademark row with Zara
"In this battle of David and Goliath, the little guy has come out on top."
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Puma Private Equity on its investment into MUSO
We have advised long-term client Puma Private Equity on its investment into MUSO TNT Limited.
FT Ignites Europe quotes Helen Coward on portfolio manager bonuses
"HMRC has had asset managers in their spotlight for some time now"
Melania Constable and Jessica Williams write for Pharmacy Business on what the collapse of Testerworld means for community pharmacies
What does the collapse of Testerworld mean for community pharmacies?
IT Pro quotes Mark Howard on investment in UK tech start-ups
"The UK has the strongest venture and growth capital funding ecosystem in Europe.”
Chris Hadnutt writes for Building Magazine on construction project defects
Chris Hadnutt writes for Building Magazine on construction project defects
The impact of Bahrain’s new PPP Guide
Following on from the release of its Government Action Plan (2019-2022) Bahrain has now approved a guide regulating PPPs
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Gurr Johns on its acquisition of Forum Auctions Limited
Gurr Johns is one of the leading international, independent art advisory and appraisal firms.