TCC declines to uphold adjudicator’s decision over possible fraudulent contract
The recent case of High Tech Construction Ltd v WLP Trading and Marketing Ltd [2026], provides a rare example of the TCC refusing to summarily enforce an adjudicator’s decision, against because the contract said to appoint the adjudicator may never have existed at all.
What happened?
High Tech Construction Ltd (HTC) carried out construction and groundworks at a London residential development owned by WLP Trading and Marketing Ltd (WLP). HTC said the works were governed by a JCT Design and Build Sub‑Contract agreed at a hotel meeting in January 2023, and ran a true value adjudication on that basis, securing an award of about £2.14 million in its favour.
WLP resisted enforcement, saying the JCT contract relied on to appoint the adjudicator was never intended to be a binding agreement, it effectively was a sham, and the parties had instead operated under two separate informal agreements – an enabling works deal and a later lump‑sum frame contract. WhatsApp messages, meeting minutes and metadata evidence linked to a prospective buyer were introduced to support WLP’s attack on the JCT document and the way it had been created.
What did the TCC decide?
- The Court refused to enforce the adjudicator’s decision on the basis that there was a realistic prospect that the JCT contract relied on to appoint the adjudicator was not a genuine, foundational agreement, meaning the adjudicator may never have had jurisdiction in the first place.
- The judge drew a clear line between misdescribing disputes (e.g. disputes about the scope of work or contract terms; these are substantive issues the adjudicator can usually decide) and existential disputes (did the appointing contract even exist; a jurisdictional issue that goes to the adjudicator’s power).
- The fact that the Scheme for Construction Contracts would apply did not cure an appointment founded on a contract which may never have existed in the first place.
What can we learn from this?
Adjudication only works if there’s a properly identified construction contract underlying it. If the existence or identity of that contract is genuinely in doubt, there’s a real risk enforcement will not be granted, since an adjudicator cannot be validly appointed under a contractual provision that does not exist. We could now see growing scrutiny from unhappy respondents over the basic contract relied on; the safest course is to get your foundation contract clearly agreed and properly evidenced at the start.
Need more clarity on adjudication matters? 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 2026
