TCC Enforces £8.7m Adjudication Award Against NEC Project Manager

The Technology and Construction Court's decision in Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership LLP v Avison Young (UK) Limited [2026] EWHC 2319 (TCC) will be of interest to those involved in adjudications and those performing project management and contract administration roles under NEC contracts.

The judgment, which enforced an adjudication decision, serves as a timely reminder of the importance of independent assessment, robust record-keeping and evidencing professional judgment when certifying payment.

The dispute

Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership LLP ("CWDP") contracted with Avison Young (UK) Limited ("AY") as NEC Project Manager and Supervisor in relation to a major project at Gateway South, Coventry. The contractor, Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd ("BGCL"), was responsible for extensive remediation and earthworks operations, with interim payments assessed by reference to the NEC concept of the Price for Work Done to Date ("PWDD").

Following BGCL's insolvency in 2023, CWDP alleged that AY had negligently over-certified interim payments throughout the project. According to CWDP, AY accepted unsupported reductions to baseline quantities, failed properly to interrogate contractor progress information, relied on inappropriate earthworks data and failed adequately to identify defects in the works. The consequence, CWDP said, was that BGCL had been paid significantly more than it should have been before becoming insolvent.

The dispute proceeded to adjudication, where the adjudicator found in CWDP's favour and awarded approximately £8.7 million in damages plus interest. AY resisted enforcement and so CWDP sought summary judgment. AY argued that the adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction, failed to provide adequate reasons and breached the rules of natural justice.

The court rejected those arguments and granted summary judgment in favour of CWDP, enforcing the adjudication decision. It did not determine CWDP’s underlying allegations.

Adjudication remains a powerful forum

The decision reinforces the courts' continuing support for adjudication.

AY argued that the dispute was a professional negligence claim requiring detailed consideration of breach, causation and loss and that the adjudicator had instead undertaken his own valuation exercise. The court rejected that argument, finding that the adjudicator had addressed the dispute referred to him (namely whether the Project Manager had failed to exercise reasonable skill and care and what loss flowed from that failure) and that the decision was not outside his jurisdiction. Any alleged errors in reasoning went to the correctness of the decision, not its enforceability.

The court also rejected challenges based on adequacy of reasons. It held that, when read as a whole, the decision sufficiently explained what had been decided and why, notwithstanding that breach, causation and loss were not addressed under separate headings.

Similarly, the court dismissed arguments that the adjudicator was required to apply principles from negligent property valuation cases before finding a breach of duty. It concluded that this was simply another challenge to the substance of his reasoning rather than the dispute he had been asked to decide.

Nor had there been any breach of natural justice. The adjudicator was entitled to rely on a third-party assessment after giving both parties a fair opportunity to comment on it and was equally entitled to reach conclusions that did not precisely mirror either party's case on retention and defects.

Finally, the court rejected AY’s attempt to sever parts of the decision (which was a request to reverse one aspect of the decision and recalculate the final sum on a different basis). The challenged findings formed part of a continuous chain of reasoning leading to a single damages award. The adjudicator's decision was enforced in full.

The decision is a reminder that courts will take a practical approach to adjudication enforcement, avoiding an overly forensic review of an adjudicator's reasoning. Provided the parties have had a fair opportunity to address the relevant issues, adjudicators are entitled to reach their own conclusions rather than simply choosing between the parties' competing positions.

Lessons for NEC Project Managers

When enforcing the adjudication decision, the court was not making any findings as to AY’s role or the professional negligence allegations in the adjudication. However, it is a reminder of the important principles relevant to the role of NEC Project Managers.

NEC (in this project, NEC3 ECC Option A) places significant responsibility on the Project Manager in relation to payment assessment and contract administration. Under clause 50, the Project Manager must assess the PWDD and determine the amount due at each assessment date. The standard form is drafted so that the role requires more than simply accepting a contractor's valuation at face value; it involves evaluating the underlying evidence of progress, considering whether work has been properly completed and taking account of any Defects that may affect valuation. In addition, the Supervisor has separate responsibilities in relation to identifying and notifying Defects.

As the case illustrates, NEC Project Managers and other certifying professionals may face substantial allegations of liability where an employer claims that negligent over-certification resulted in its overpaying a contractor.

Here, CWDP’s case centred on a number of familiar project administration issues. As recorded in the court’s enforcement judgment, the adjudicator’s findings concerned acceptance of contractor information without sufficient challenge; failure to reconcile conflicting contemporaneous records; inadequate scrutiny of baseline quantities; and shortcomings in identifying certain defects relevant to valuation, leading to a significant over-certification of the PWDD.

The case is therefore a reminder of the importance of maintaining a clear audit trail showing how assessments have been reached. Where valuation depends upon quantities, progress percentages or production data, contemporaneous records explaining why particular information was preferred may prove invaluable if decisions are later challenged.

The judgment is also a reminder that contractor insolvency can significantly change the dispute landscape. An alleged over-certification in an interim certification that might otherwise be corrected through later assessments could potentially become the subject of a substantial professional negligence claim once recovery from a contractor is no longer possible.

The takeaways

This case highlights the potential exposure that can arise where project management decisions are subsequently alleged to have contributed to significant overpayments.

For those undertaking NEC Project Manager and Supervisor roles, the practical message is clear: independent assessment matters, contemporaneous records matter and the ability to demonstrate the reasoning behind certification decisions may be critical if those decisions are later challenged. When projects encounter financial distress or contractor insolvency, those records may become the first line of defence against a professional negligence claim.

It also serves as a reminder of the courts' continued robust support for adjudication. Even in disputes involving complex allegations of professional negligence, breach of duty, causation and loss, the courts remain reluctant to interfere with adjudicators' decisions unless there has been a clear jurisdictional error or material breach of natural justice.

Related News, Insights & Events