In Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership LLP v Avison Young (UK) Ltd, the Technology and Construction Court took a robust approach to the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision, while also confirming that project managers can be liable for negligently overvaluing contractors’ entitlements and thereby causing employers to overpay. It is unusual for a negligence type claim to be run in an adjudication. This article provides a summary of the judgment and highlights its key implications for the construction industry.
Background
The main parties were Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership LLP (“CWDP”) and Avison Young (UK) Ltd (“Avison”). From January 2020 to January 2023, Avison was engaged by CWDP to act as a NEC project manager and NEC supervisor under an NEC 3 ECC Option A contract (“the Contract”). The Contract was for CWDP’s development works at Gateway South in Coventry, being an industrial and logistics park on a 215-acre site previously used as a sewage treatment plant (“the Works”). Substantial reclamation and remediation earthworks were needed.
CWDP engaged Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd (“Buckingham”) to carry out works involving excavation, treatment and positioning of some 5,000,000 m3 of material to form a bund. Monthly applications for interim payments were to be issued for the same, value of which was to be determined by reference to the applicable Price for Work Done to Date (“PWDD”). It is said that the PWDD was to be calculated by “determining what proportion of the total works in relation to the relevant activity had been properly completed at the date of the application and applying that proportion to the total lump sum to be paid for that activity”. Avison was to certify the sums due on the monthly payment applications.
The dispute concerned Avison’s failure to perform its duties with “proper care and skill” in relation to the certification of the sums due from CWDP, and that CWDP consequently suffered loss when Buckingham became insolvent and the overpayment could not be recovered.
The Adjudication
CWDP referred the dispute to adjudication as a professional negligence claim. CWDP’s position was that Avison significantly overvalued the amounts due to Buckingham, and that Avison accepted (without adequately questioning) reduced volumes which Buckingham had put forward for the total volume of material to be moved. Additionally, CWDP argued that Avison wrongly accepted Buckingham’s assertion of the extent of the work done and failed to identify defects in the works.
Avison challenged this.
On 13 February 2026, the Adjudicator decided that whilst Avison “cannot be held liable for the consequences of [Buckingham’s] insolvency”, CWDP was awarded £8,729,179.33 plus interest as damages (“the Adjudicator’s Decision”).
Avison communicated that it would not pay.
Court Proceedings
CWDP raised summary enforcement proceedings to enforce the Adjudicator’s Decision. Avison resisted on several grounds, notably:
Excess Jurisdiction
Firstly, that the Adjudicator undertook a different exercise (being his own valuation exercise, substituting assessment given by the parties) than what was referred (being a dispute relating to professional negligence). Secondly, that even if the Adjudicator was attempting to address the correct dispute, the approach adopted was flawed. The Court rejected both propositions, finding that the Adjudicator’s assessment exercise did not make the adjudication one based on true value. The Court accepted that an adjudicator may exceed jurisdiction if, in substance, they decide a materially different dispute. However, this was not the situation at hand , as the Adjudicator did address whether Avison exercised the required skill and care whilst carrying out their duties, and what loss flowed from that.
Did the Adjudicator answer the right question?
That the Adjudicator failed to give adequate reasons for his decision and so failed to decide the dispute which had been referred. Again, the Court rejected this and it can be inferred that adjudicator’s do not have to produce decisions that are of judicial standard – as long as the parties understand what has been decided and why, that would suffice.
The Natural Justice Challenge
Avison also posed a challenge based on breach of natural justice. This was on the basis that the Adjudicator relied on evidence (namely an independent post-termination valuation) that neither party had advanced nor relied on. This challenge was rejected by the Court, as the Adjudicator had identified potentially relevant material, made clear that it might matter and gave both parties an opportunity to make submissions on it. There was no procedural unfairness.
Severance of the Adjudicator's Decision
It is worth noting that Avison sought to remove certain findings relative to retention and defects from the rest of the Adjudicator’s Decision. The Court rejected this, as these findings formed the overall assessment of loss performed by the Adjudicator.
The Adjudicator’s Decision was enforced in full.
Implications for Construction Industry
It is unusual for a negligence type claim to be run in an adjudication.
A key takeaway is that a project manager (as a professional consultant) can be liable to the employer in damages if they negligently overvalue sums due to contractors.
Procedurally, this judgment serves as a reminder that an adjudicator is not restricted to matters expressly advanced by the parties. They may attach significance to evidence provided during an adjudication if parties are given a fair opportunity to address matters. Parties should be mindful of what material is being submitted during an adjudication and assess implications of doing so well in advance.
This decision also notes that severance of an adjudicator’s decision is only available in very limited circumstances and not based on dissatisfaction of a party as to the result.
Contributors
Senior Solicitor
Legal Director
Head of Dispute Resolution and Risk & Partner
