A classic of its kind: Project One London v VMA Services
27th Jan 2026
In Project One London Limited v VMA Services Limited [2025] EWHC 3304 (TCC), Adrian Williamson KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court granted summary judgment in favour of the Claimant. Following an in-person hearing at the Rolls Building on 8th December 2025, judgment was reserved until 18th December 2025. The judgment demonstrates that the Technology and Construction Court continues to take a robust approach to the enforcement of construction adjudication decisions.
The Claimant (a main contractor) sought to enforce a decision in its favour, following the failure of the Defendant (a sub-contractor) to pay the sum of £102,656.67 directed by the adjudicator on 18th September 2025.
The Defendant resisted enforcement on the basis of three alleged breaches of the rules of natural justice: first, the adjudicator took a point that had not been argued by either party; second, the adjudicator ignored undisputed evidence and substituted his own guesswork; and third, the adjudicator applied a blanket reduction of 50% to certain items, whilst using the word “arbitrary” to describe his own approach.
At paragraphs 9 to 14 of his judgment, Mr Williamson KC provided a helpful and up-to-date summary of the relevant legal principles. He then proceeded to dismiss each of the defences in turn.
On the first point, the Judge did not agree that the adjudicator had gone on a frolic of his own. The parties were aware of the relevant material, and the issues had been fairly canvassed. In the face of imprecise evidence and submissions, the adjudicator did his best to achieve “the rough justice which adjudication requires”. He could not be criticised for doing so.
On the second point, the Defendant’s criticism of the adjudicator was described by the Judge as “misconceived”. Even if the adjudicator had misunderstood or overlooked relevant evidence, this would not be a ground for resisting enforcement, unless the failure had been both deliberate and material. The Defendant’s case on this point was “really an attempt to dress up an alleged error of law or fact as a breach of natural justice.”
On the third point, counsel for the Defendant drew the Judge’s attention to a number of authorities on arbitrariness. Counsel for the Claimant, by contrast, drew the Judge’s attention to the Oxford English Dictionary’s various definitions of “arbitrary”, including the following: “Relating to, or dependent on, the discretion of an arbiter, arbitrator, or other legally-recognized authority; discretionary, not fixed.”
The Judge stated that he found no assistance in the authorities relied upon by the Defendant. The adjudicator was not wielding the power of the state over citizens; he was trying to assess the value of certain building works, in a short time and on the basis of limited information. In using the word “arbitrary”, the adjudicator was simply indicating that he had made the best approximate valuation he could manage in the time available. “This is exactly what the courts require adjudicators to do: no more and no less.”
In granting summary judgment in favour of the Claimant, the Judge made some closing remarks which referred to well-known passages of the case law. He stated that in fact, standing back from the detail, this was “a classic case” of a losing party seeking to comb through the adjudicator’s reasons and identify points upon which to present a challenge under the labels “excess of jurisdiction” or “breach of natural justice”. Moreover, the task of the adjudicator is not to act as arbitrator or judge. The task of the adjudicator is to find an interim solution which meets the needs of the case: “That is what this adjudicator did.”
The judgment makes salutary reading for any party (and its lawyers) thinking of resisting enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision on less than convincing grounds.
William Lacey acted on a Direct Access basis for the successful Claimant.
The judgment can be found here:
