The recent TCC decision of WRW Construction Limited v Datblygau Davies Developments Limited [2020] EWHC 1965 (TCC) explored whether the lack of an order for payment in adjudication, would preclude the court from directing that payment be made. The court found that as the Adjudicator had carried out a valuation exercise which showed that sums were due to the contractor, that was sufficient for it to award payment – no order for payment by the Adjudicator was required.

The adjudication concerned the valuation of a post termination final account. Datblygau Davies Developments Limited (the "Employer"), considered that WRW Construction Limited (the "Contractor") was due to pay £3,345,790.40.

In the Response, the Contractor considered that the valuation of the final account showed money due to it by the Employer in the sum of £695,035.63. However, it did not consider that the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to award payment of these sums. The Contractor instead sought a determination that "the sum due and payable by WRW [the Contractor] to DDD [the Employer] is -£695,035.63", to demonstrate that its counterclaim defeated the Employer's claim in its entirety.

Following a valuation of the final account, the Adjudicator agreed with the Contractor that it was owed money by the Employer and found that "…WRW shall pay to DDD the sum of -£568,597.32 (negative) within 7 days of the date of my Decision."

The Contractor then enforced the decision and sought an award of £568,597.32. The Employer defended the enforcement proceedings on the basis that albeit the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to value the final account, he did not have jurisdiction to award payment to the Contractor. The Contractor would need to raise a separate adjudication for these sums. The Employer also argued that if the court were to award payment, that would represent a final determination and stop the Employer from raising a further action to recover any overpayment.


The court disagreed with the Employer, finding that it was able to award payment by virtue of the Adjudicator carrying out a valuation exercise. The court also did not agree that its award would mean the Employer would be unable to recover an overpayment; the ambit of its decision was only whether the Adjudicator's decision should be enforced, not a final determination of the final account. These are two different causes of action and the enforcement action did not preclude a final determination.


This decision is helpful for those responding parties that are due money from the referring party, but jurisdictional concerns stop the Adjudicator awarding payment. It also acts as a warning to referring parties that there is no guarantee that money will only flow in one direction, though we should bear in mind this case concerned a final account on termination and typically such an exercise will look at the final sums due or by the parties in question. The decision is not binding in Scotland. It is nonetheless a noteworthy development in the law of adjudication enforcement and one to be kept in mind if a party finds itself in similar circumstances.