UK: Smash And Grab Adjudications – Redressing The Balance

Last Updated: 9 August 2018
Article by Gurbinder Grewal, Akin Akinbode, Kirsti Olson and Tracey Summerell

A review of Coulson J's final TCC decision in Grove, another instalment in the 'smash and grab' adjudications saga.

This article was first published in Construction Law on 1 June 2018 (reference (2018) 29 5 Cons.Law 27).

Key Points

  • When drafting a pay less notice, an employer can refer to and rely on calculations set out in other documents. The wording of that reference, and the content referred to, must be crystal clear
  • In the absence of a pay less notice, the contractor is entitled to be paid the sum stated as due in its payment application
  • An employer who disagrees with the contractor's valuation but fails to serve the pay less notice can start a fresh adjudication to determine the true value payable but must first pay the sum stated as due
  • Ideally, employers will want to issue 'true value' adjudications at the same time as contractor smash and grab adjudications so that they can, potentially, set off any 'overvalue' in the contractor's application found by the second adjudicator against the sum found by the first adjudicator to be payable due to the lack of a pay less notice. Coulson J's insistence on the employer paying up before starting a 'true value' adjudication may scupper this approach
  • Contractors may now think twice before starting smash and grab adjudications − especially where the employer has already disputed the figures and a second, expensive, 'true value' adjudication is likely

Construction adjudication was established under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 as amended (the HGCRA 1996) to improve cash flow for those working on projects under construction contracts. The 'pay now, argue later' approach has become the backbone of the adjudication procedure and is rigorously supported by the Technology and Construction Court (TCC).

In recent years, contractors have used a 'smash and grab' adjudication to take advantage of the draconian 2011 changes to the payment terms under the HGCRA 1996. Contractors can start such adjudications when an employer fails to respond in time to a payment application often made at the end of the works but before the final account. Tactically speaking, success in such an adjudication transfers the whole pot of disputed valuation money into the contractor's pocket ahead of the final account process without going through the contractual valuation process. The employer must still pay up even if it has disputed those valuations throughout the project.

In Grove Developments Ltd v S&T (UK) Ltd [2018] EWHC 123 (TCC), Coulson J has redressed the balance between contractors and employers and made such adjudications less attractive.

The background

The claimant (Grove) engaged the defendant (S&T) to design and build a hotel at Heathrow Terminal 4 using the JCT Design and Build Contract 2011. The key facts are as follows:

  • S&T's interim application no 22 (IA22) was approximately £40 million, £14,009,906.58 higher than Grove's previous valuation.
  • In response, Grove served a payment notice, detailed assessment of S&T's valuation and interim certificate 22 on 13 April 2017 certifying as payable £1,407,748.
  • On 18 April 2017, Grove served its pay less notice in response to IA22, which referenced and relied on the calculations provided on 13 April.
  • S&T claimed that Grove's pay less notice did not comply with the contract and was invalid because it did not specify the calculations in the notice itself but referred back to Grove's calculations of 13 April 2017.
  • S&T referred this issue to adjudication (the third on this project) and the adjudicator decided that Grove's pay less notice was invalid.
  • In the meantime, Grove had issued proceedings in the TCC for declarations that (1) the pay less notice was valid and (2) (if the pay less notice was invalid) it could immediately go on to adjudicate the true value of IA22.
  • S&T issued TCC adjudication enforcement proceedings, which were heard at the same time as Grove's 'true value' proceedings.

The TCC's reasoning

Coulson J first decided that Grove's reference to calculations in earlier correspondence in its pay less notice was sufficient for the notice to comply with the contract. S&T could understand precisely how Grove's valuation was calculated from the 13 April 2017 calculations and there should be, in principle, no objection to the use of this method, where the reference was to another, clearly-identified, document. Grove's pay less notice was therefore effective, the third adjudicator's decision was not enforceable and it did not have to pay the £14 million.

Arguably, therefore, Coulson J did not need to deal with the issue of whether Grove could contest the true value of IA22. However, acknowledging that this issue would interest construction contract parties and to correct previous errant behaviour, he proceeded as if the pay less notice was invalid. He found that an employer can make a true valuation referral even when in default of the notice procedures. He gave six reasons.

First, the court can decide the 'true' value of any certificate, notice or application and, as part of that process, it has an inherent power to open up, review and revise any existing certificates, notices or applications. If the court has the power to do something, then so too does an adjudicator. Where the parties confer power on the adjudicator to decide all their disputes, the adjudicator has the same wide powers as the court.

Secondly, neither the HGCRA 1996 (s 108) nor the Scheme for Construction Contracts (the Scheme) contains any limitation on the nature, scope and extent of the dispute which either side can refer to an adjudicator; nor do they qualify the types of dispute encompassed by s 108. Just as a court can decide any subsequent dispute as to the 'true' valuation of the interim application, so can an adjudicator.

Thirdly, the third adjudicator dealt only with the validity of the pay less notice, not the true value of IA22. The valuation was a different and separate issue and could be referred to another adjudication. To find otherwise would be an unwarranted restriction on Grove's ability to adjudicate at any time.

Fourthly, common law does not recognise a contractor's right to interim payments. Standard form construction contracts therefore commonly make such provision. The contract terms are consequently of the utmost importance. The contract distinguishes between 'the sum due' (the 'true' valuation – 'calculated to the penny' using the contractual mechanisms) and 'the sum stated to be due' by the contractor (which will, for example, become payable without a pay less notice). There is a fundamental difference between the two concepts. Simply because the employer fails to serve a valid pay less notice or is late in serving, it does not mean 'the sum stated as due' ['magically'] transforms into 'the sum due'. The employer, 'having paid 'the sum stated as due', is entitled to commence an adjudication as to the 'true' valuation of the contractor's interim application. To hold otherwise 'would ignore the careful drafting of the contract provisions'.

Fifthly, a contractor can challenge 'the sum stated to be due' in an employer's pay less notice immediately. Neither the HGCRA 1996 nor the Scheme prohibits the employer from doing the same – and it would be wrong in principle, unjustifiable, unfair and unequal to stop an employer from doing what a contractor can do.

Lastly, neither the HGCRA 1996, the Scheme nor the JCT Contract distinguishes between the treatment of interim and final payment applications. The critical distinction established under the JCT contract between 'the sum due' and 'the sum stated as due' also applies on the final account. There is no material difference between the valuation and payment regimes and the corresponding rights and obligations of the parties for interim and final payments.

The contract treats interim and final applications and payments in the same way – and so too should the parties, adjudicators and courts:

'Whether what is in dispute is an interim payment or a final payment, the employer has the right in principle to refer to adjudication the dispute about the "true" valuation.'

The employer must first pay the sums stated as due then start a separate adjudication to ascertain the true value.

Coulson J found support for his conclusions in various Court of Appeal (CA) decisions, including: Rupert Morgan Building Services (LLC) Ltd v Jervis [2003] EWCA Civ 1563, Harding (t/a MJ Harding Contractors) v Paice [2015] EWCA Civ 1231 and Brown v Complete Buildings Solutions Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1. He dismissed S&T's argument that 'pay now, argue later' meant 'pay now, argue right at the end'. 'Pay now, argue later' means 'pay now and argue after payment'.

However, when he turned to TCC decisions, Coulson J disagreed with the TCC's reasoning in ISG Construction Ltd v Seevic College [2014] EWHC 4007 (TCC) and Galliford Try Building Ltd v Estura Ltd [2015] EWHC 412 (TCC). In these cases, an employer's failure to serve the pay less notice was taken as deemed agreement of the amount stated as due in the contractor's payment application. Having 'agreed', there was, technically speaking, no dispute on valuation to refer to adjudication and the employer had to pay up and wait until a final determination before challenging the true value payable under the contract.

Loath to find fault with a fellow TCC judge's decisions, Coulson J nevertheless found these two decisions 'erroneous and incomplete' and contrary to the CA authorities: he held they were not to be followed. He found there was no factual basis for the employer's deemed agreement and this concept, which lay at the root of ISG and Galliford, was not only unjustified but 'an unnecessary complication, given the clear contractual distinction between "the sum due", on the one hand, and "the sum stated as due", on the other.' In the present case, it was unrealistic to say that Grove had agreed IA22 when the parties were in obvious disagreement on the value as evidenced by the 13 April spreadsheet.

A welcome decision – but is the future clearer?

Coulson J clearly hoped his judgment would reduce the number of smash and grab adjudications − but his decision does not ban them. Contractors might still be tempted to launch such an adjudication despite knowing they may only have the cash in hand for a matter of months. Grove recognises that the HGCRA 1996 did not intend to give the contractor the right to hang on to sums to which it is not entitled for lengthy periods. Without a right to adjudicate the true value it could be months or years before the employer could recover an overpayment.

Coulson J dismissed S&T's argument that a right for employers to adjudicate the true value if it misses the pay less notice deadline would undermine the statutory adjudication system and lead to more adjudications. The risk of injustice to the employer increases as the final account process approaches. A true value adjudication is an important remedy to recover overpayments.

Employers will welcome the decision as it addresses the inherent unfairness of a sum being paid without an interrogation of its merits. That said, the extra cost of a second adjudication should still be a key consideration. Substantive valuation disputes are expensive, often involve experts and difficult issues relating to the programme and quantum. There is also no guarantee the adjudicator will agree with the employer's valuation.

Grove might still attract further judicial scrutiny on the following issues:

  • Coulson J dismissed concerns about the lack of a contractual repayment mechanism by which a sum could be repaid to the employer if the interim application was too high. The parties gave the adjudicator jurisdiction to decide the overpayment issue. If an overpayment is found, the decision is binding and the relevant party must make payment. Additional repayment terms in the contract to cover that scenario are unnecessary.
  • Coulson J appears to make clear that the employer cannot start a second valuation adjudication until it has paid up on the first decision. This might create a problem for those employers who issue strategic parallel adjudication proceedings shortly after a contractor's 'smash and grab' referral to adjudication (i.e. before they have paid the contractor). The contractor might argue the second adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to deal with the valuation issue until the first has decided whether payment is due and the monies have been paid.
  • It is not clear how a requirement to pay the sum stated as due before a second valuation issue is referred to adjudication, fits with the statutory right to adjudicate 'at any time' (once the dispute has crystallised).

Leave to appeal has been granted and the CA might soon be adding its views to the ongoing smash and grab adjudication saga.

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions