Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Entexol LTD against Sked Construction LTD (Court of Session)
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
Company A was engaged as a subcontractor by Company B for works being carried out for a third-party energy network company. Disputes under the subcontract were referred to adjudication. In the second adjudication, the adjudicator decided that Company B should pay Company A £113,767. Company A brought this action to enforce that award. [1][2]
Company B argued that the award was unenforceable because the adjudicator had breached natural justice by deciding that “time was at large” without giving the parties an opportunity to address that issue. [1][2]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the adjudicator’s decision was unenforceable for breach of natural justice because the adjudicator concluded that time was at large without inviting further submissions. [3][4][5][6]
- Whether Company A was entitled to summary decree for a further £10,000 claimed in the third conclusion. [7][8]
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant’s Arguments
- Neither party had submitted that time was at large, so the adjudicator had adopted a novel approach or gone on a “frolic of his own.” [5]
- After rejecting the alleged fixed completion date of 13 November 2024, the adjudicator should have allowed Company B to address what constituted a reasonable completion period. [5][6]
- There remained a factual dispute concerning the documents said to be required in support of the £10,000 claim. [7]
Plaintiff’s Arguments
- The completion date was part of Company B’s own case, and assessing its contra-charge claim required the adjudicator to decide whether a binding completion date existed. [9]
- Company B bore the burden of establishing the date by which the works should have been completed. [9]
- Even if the completion-date issue had been decided in Company B’s favour, Company B had not established that it suffered loss from delay; accordingly, any error concerning time was immaterial. [9][10]
- The condition attached to the £10,000 claim had been satisfied because the necessary information had allegedly been provided by email. [7]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Van Oord UK Limited v Dragados UK Limited [2022] CSOH 30, [2022] SLT 521 |
Adjudicators’ awards are generally enforced summarily, but enforcement may be refused where the procedure involved a failure to comply with natural justice. |
The court treated this as the applicable framework for determining whether the award could be enforced. [3] |
| ATG Services (Scotland) Limited v Ogilvie Construction Limited [2024] CSOH 94 |
The central question is whether the parties knew of the point against them and had an opportunity to respond before the decision. |
The court relied on the reiterated natural-justice approach in assessing whether the adjudicator had improperly introduced a new issue. [4] |
| Premier Modular Limited v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 1404 (TCC) |
The same principles concerning non-enforcement for procedural unfairness and lack of opportunity to respond. |
The court considered the authority alongside the Scottish authorities but found no relevant procedural unfairness on the facts. [4] |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The court accepted that adjudicators’ awards are normally enforced summarily and that natural-justice failures may justify refusing enforcement. The essential question was whether the parties had notice of the relevant issue and a fair opportunity to respond. [3][4]
The adjudicator had been asked to decide whether Company B had established a contra-charge based on alleged late completion. Company B’s case depended on the assertion that the works had to be completed by 13 November 2024. [11][12]
The adjudicator rejected the contention that the relevant email imposed that completion date and concluded that Company B had not established a key element of its contra-charge case. The reference to time being at large was therefore a consequence of rejecting Company B’s case, rather than an independently introduced basis for decision. [13][14][12]
The court considered that Company B had not advanced an alternative case that the works were completed outside a reasonable time. The adjudicator had not conducted his own investigations; he had rejected the case presented by Company B. [15]
The court rejected the submission that the adjudicator was required to invite further submissions after deciding that the alleged contractual completion date had not been established. Such a requirement would not ordinarily apply in court proceedings, and adjudication is intended to be quicker and more informal, subject to tight procedural timetables. [15][16][17]
In relation to the separate £10,000 claim, the court found that a potentially relevant defence remained and that the disputed factual issue could not be resolved on the material before it. Summary decree was therefore inappropriate. [17]
Holding and Implications
Decree granted for £113,767. The court found no relevant defence to the enforcement claim and sustained Company A’s first plea-in-law to that extent. [18]
The motions concerning the first conclusion for summary decree consequently fell away. The court refused both to find the defence to the £10,000 claim irrelevant and to grant summary decree for that sum. The case was continued for further procedure. [18]
The decision directly permits enforcement of the adjudicator’s award while leaving the £10,000 claim unresolved. No new precedent was set. [18]
Click here to read the full judgment