Enforcement of an Adjudicator’s Decision - Murnells London Limited v Mr Beale [2025] EWHC 2651 (TCC)
The Technology & Construction Court at Liverpool recently released a decision enforcing an adjudicator’s award. The defendant, a private individual, sought to resist enforcement of the decision by relying on two jurisdiction arguments.
In Murnells London Limited v Mr Beale [2025] EWHC 2651 (TCC), Murnells succeeded in adjudication claiming £365,332.97 exclusive of interest following renovation works carried out in Northamptonshire. But, who was Murnells?
Originally, Mr Beale entered into a Letter of Intent with the named Murnells Limited, not Murnells London Limited. Thereafter, various contract documents came into existence as the project got underway identifying Murnells London Limited as the contractor. So, who was the correct Murnells entity? It was Murnells London Limited identified in all the signed contact iterations and subsequently commenced the adjudication, attained the award and, spoiler, enforced it.
Matters came to ahead when the works were delayed, leading to Mr Beale terminating the relationship in November 2024 citing repudiatory breach, which Murnells contented was invalid. After Murnells commenced an adjudication Mr Beale raised jurisdiction arguments as to whether an Extension of Time request had ever been submitted beforehand and whether the correct Murnells entity had been named as the Referring Party.
When the matter reached enforcement stage, Murnells argued the jurisdiction argument being presented in the defence to the enforcement proceedings had essentially evolved from the one raised during the adjudication process when reserving rights over the adjudicator’s jurisdiction. This is because a rectification had been raised to change Murnells London Limited to Murnells Limited on the basis the latter is who the parties intended to place within the contract.
Adopting the approach laid down by Coulson LJ at the Court of Appeal stage of Bresco Electrical Services v Michael J Lonsdale [2019] EWCA Civ 27, the TCC decided a jurisdiction challenge not adopted clearly during the adjudication is taken to have been waived at the enforcement stage, with only a general reservation being an undesirable saviour. That is particularly in circumstances in which the objector knew or ought to have known of the specific grounds for a jurisdictional objection at the time.
The TCC decided while Murnells Limited was referenced in many documents, it was fanciful to suggest Murnells London Limited was not supposed to be the contracting party. The contract was prepared by Mr Beale’s quantity surveyor, identifying Murnells London Limited as the contractor, circulating it for comments with no objections raised and indeed (eventually) signed.
Mr Beale’s argument a dispute over an extension of time had not crystallised before the dispute was referred to adjudication also failed. The TCC rejected his argument the extension of time dispute had not properly crystallised, finding the approach ‘far too narrow a one and requires an excessive degree of particularisation, of the sort disapproved of by Coulson J’. The dispute referred to adjudication was broader than only an extension of time, and previous communications had referenced ‘very significant extensions of time’. Accordingly, the TCC granted summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator's decision.
