The article discusses a High Court decision refusing to enforce a £1.65m adjudication award because the adjudicator relied on a reasoning path that neither party had advanced, breaching natural justice. The case arose from a delay claim on an NEC4 project and reinforces that while adjudication remains a fast interim dispute process, it must still be conducted fairly.
A court has upheld an adjudicator’s decision in a dispute between contractor BDP and client Cygnet Behavioural Health, confirming an award of £136,769. The judge found that the adjudicator was entitled to reject both parties’ competing liquidated damages rates, rejecting arguments that he had exceeded his jurisdiction or breached natural justice.
The government has rejected calls to exempt certain construction contracts from its planned ban on retentions, arguing that the practice is ineffective at preventing defects and creates cashflow and insolvency risks. Ministers said they will instead work with industry during a transition period to develop alternative forms of surety, while also confirming 30-day payment requirements for contracts under the Procurement Act 2023.
The article reports that the Home Office is tightening right-to-work rules, with draft guidance set to expand liability beyond direct employers to firms higher up the contractual chain from 1 October 2026. Construction businesses are being urged to review due diligence, subcontractor oversight and contract arrangements now, as the sector’s reliance on layered labour supply chains increases exposure to penalties.
Sir Robert McAlpine is facing a High Court damages claim over alleged fire safety defects at a London mixed-use development, with the freeholder alleging the 13 residential units were not fit for habitation. The claim references EWS1-related review work, remediation already completed, and alleged breaches of contract, warranty rights and the Defective Premises Act 1972.
The article reports on a Technology and Construction Court decision in Mallas v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2025], which reiterates how the courts approach proportionality in high-value remedial claims. It highlights that housebuilders may still face substantial liability, while the court’s reasoning provides guidance on when demolition or other remedial works may be considered.
