In LAPP Industries Ltd v 1st Formations Ltd [2025], the TCC enforced an Adjudicator’s £120,000 award and criticised Formations for clutching at straws with tactical objections that simply didn’t hold up.

What happened?

LAPP secured an Adjudicator’s decision against Formations for unpaid refurbishment work at a London office property. Formations resisted enforcement of the award, claiming the Adjudicator:

1. Lacked jurisdiction – only single disputes under one contract may be referred to adjudication, but Formations claimed there were 14 separate contracts because each quotation from LAPP supposedly created a new agreement.
2. Breached the rules of natural justice by neglecting two key defences and going on a “frolic of her own.”

What did the Court decide?

The Judge dismissed both arguments. Enforcing the Adjudicator’s decision, he reaffirmed that enforcement is the default. Specifically:

• It was “contrived and unrealistic” to say that a new contract was formed every time LAPP submitted a quotation for an aspect of the work, especially since the works were on a single site and referred to as a single project.
• The Adjudicator considered all the submissions when making her decision and included a boilerplate clause confirming all materials were reviewed, which the Court accepted at face value.
• The Adjudicator explicitly addressed Formations’ two defences in her decision, so she clearly had considered and rejected them.

What can we learn from this?

The Judge criticised Formations’ “surmise and micawberism” (hoping defences might materialise), stressing the Courts will prioritise commercial reality over legal nitpicking. Scrabbling around for technical defences will not impress the Court – avoid going down this route so you don’t waste costs or time on futile proceedings.

Have concerns or need more clarity on these topics? Don’t hesitate to get in touch. Our team is on hand to offer clear and commercial legal support.

To download the bulletin, please do so here.

This article contains information of general interest about current legal issues, but does not provide legal advice. It is prepared for the general information of our clients and other interested parties. This article should not be relied upon in any specific situation without appropriate legal advice. If you require legal advice on any of the issues raised in this article, please contact one of our specialist construction lawyers.

© Hawkswell Kilvington Limited 2025

Featured Lawyers:

Gary Ashton | Partner

Meredith Peart | Trainee Solicitor