High Court Upholds Adjudicator's Decision in Iluminesia v RFL: Key Legal Issues Explored

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3122 (TCC)
Judgment on

Introduction

The High Court of Justice, in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) division, recently handed down a judgment in the case of Iluminesia Limited (t/a Alterego Facades) v RFL Facades Limited [2023] EWHC 3122 (TCC). This case presents a detailed illustration of the principles applied in a summary judgment application within the context of adjudication enforcement proceedings. The judgment delves into the intricacies of contract formation, adjudication jurisdiction, defects in notice of adjudication, excess of jurisdiction/natural justice, and the application of the doctrine of approbation and reprobation within the adjudication process. This article provides a structured analysis of the aforementioned legal issues, as elucidated in the judgment handed down by HH Judge Davis-White KC.

Key Facts

Alterego sought enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision against RFL, which required RFL to pay Alterego a sum of money following the repudiatory breach of contract by RFL. RFL, on the other hand, contested the adjudicator’s decision citing several grounds including a lack of a written adjudication agreement, defects in the notice of adjudication, decisions made without jurisdiction, and the alleged paradox of Alterego approbating and reprobating the adjudicator’s decision.

Jurisdiction of Adjudication

The case hinged on whether the adjudicator, Mr. Pugh, had jurisdiction to decide the dispute between Alterego and RFL. The court evaluated the formation of the contract, the incorporation of standard terms and conditions which included the adjudication clause, and whether the notice of intention to refer to adjudication was appropriately detailed as required under the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

Contract Formation

Judge Davis-White deemed that a binding contract was formed on the acceptance of terms offered by Alterego on 31 January 2022, which included the adjudication provision. Payment of the deposit by RFL and the delivery and acceptance of certain goods were viewed as conduct accepting this offer.

Adequacy of the Notice of Adjudication

According to paragraph 1(3) of the Scheme, a notice of adjudication must briefly set out certain specified content. While RFL argued that the notice was inadequate, the court found that the notice was valid, either on its own or when read in conjunction with the Letter of Claim, which was considered incorporated by reference.

Excess of Jurisdiction and Natural Justice

The adjudicator’s jurisdiction included determining the nature of the contract, its terms relevant to the claims, the permissibility of RFL’s contract cancellation, and entitlement to sums claimed. RFL argued that the adjudicator decided on a basis not referred to him and without giving RFL adequate time to respond, effectively breaching principles of natural justice. The court, however, concluded that RFL had ample opportunity to address the new point raised by the adjudicator.

Approbation and Reprobation

RFL contended that Alterego was approbating the adjudicator’s award by seeking to enforce the monetary sum awarded while reprobating the award by asserting that the contract identified by the adjudicator was incorrect. The court found that Alterego had acted consistently with legal policy surrounding adjudication enforcement, effectively rendering RFL’s argument untenable.

Outcomes

A grant of summary judgment was given in favor of Alterego, with the court concluding that RFL had no real prospect of success in establishing that the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction or breached natural justice, nor was there an issue of approbation and reprobation that would preclude enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision.

Conclusion

The judgment of Iluminesia Limited v RFL Facades Limited underscores the court’s tendency to uphold adjudicators’ decisions absent clear jurisdictional issues or material breaches of natural justice. The overarching legal policy favors the enforcement of adjudication decisions as an interim dispute resolution mechanism, highlighting the courts’ reluctance to intervene in matters pertaining to the substantive outcome of adjudications. The case solidifies the prevailing legal principles concerning adjudication enforcement and reiterates the need for clear contractual agreements with incorporated adjudication clauses, cogent and complete notice of adjudication, and adherence to principles of natural justice during the adjudication process.

Related Summaries