First adjudication enforcement refusal in 2026: TCC declines summary judgment over “fabricated” JCT contract

The TCC in High Tech Construction Limited v WLP Trading and Marketing Limited [2026] EWHC 152 (TCC) refused the Claimant's (HTC's) application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's decision worth approximately £2 million. 

Finding that there was a real prospect of success for the Defendant's (WLP’s) case that a JCT contract did not exist, the Adjudicator may not have had jurisdiction to issue the decision. WLP challenged the contract's validity, so the Court would not summarily enforce the decision. Instead, the dispute has been left to proceed to a full trial to determine what the true contract between the parties was. 

Allegations of fraudulently “concocting” the existence of the contract were raised, but the Court needed not to resolve those allegations at this stage because the jurisdiction challenge succeeded. The Court also indicated that, even if the decision had been enforced, it would have considered ordering a stay or requiring payment into court.

HTC's application for summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator's decision concerned groundworks, the design and installation of a substructure, concrete frame, lifts, stair cores and drainage for a residential development in London. Both parties acknowledged the other's case has a real prospect of success at trial, which appears to be likely in light of this judgment. 

HTC’s case was that the works were governed by a binding JCT Design and Build Sub-Contract executed at a meeting in a hotel, which conferred them the right to adjudicate (JCT Contract).  WLP, by contrast, claimed that no such JCT Contract was ever agreed. Instead, it said the parties operated under two informal arrangements, known as an “Enabling Works Contract” and a narrower “RC Frame Contract”, agreed orally and via WhatsApp.

WLP also raised concerns about HTC’s financial position, arguing that this meant the decision should not be enforced, regardless of a freezing order HTC previously obtained.  To explain further, HTC had earlier secured a freezing order against WLP in late 2025 which restrained WLP from disposing of assets while the dispute unfolded. Although that order was continued at the return date, WLP maintained that the freezing order did not cure its concerns about HTC’s financial position and argued that enforcement should still be refused.

Accordingly, WLP argued the JCT Contract did not govern the parties relationship and, therefore, could not be used to trigger adjudication under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. On WLP’s account, the Enabling Works Contract was said to have paused for commercial reasons, and the RC Frame Contract was argued to be far narrower. The JCT Contract was said to be “fabricated” from a different project WLP was not involved with, such that any quotes HTC sought to rely on were said to be initial only without a full design. The adjudicator's appointment via a RICS nomination was therefore argued to be invalid, rendering the decision a nullity. 

We saw last year in Jaevee v Fincham how contracts can be formed via WhatsApp (see here for our analysis). Already this year, we see arguments over (i) whether formal contracts have been placed when at least one party says oral and WhatsApp exchanges take precedence and (ii) whether the contracts illustrate the bargain the parties struck. Disputes over contract formation and how it affects an adjudicator's decision are likely to continue, especially as more parties start to rely on more informal mechanisms to agree works.